Church Sex Abuse Scandals

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1182659' date='Feb 1 2007, 10:25 PM']
Well, why don't you get out there and enjoy your new-found happiness in life, rather than sitting hunched over a computer, bitching endlessly about a Church you don't belong to??
Sheesh!
[/quote]LOL. I don't post as often as I used to and I have plenty of time to enjoy life.
I'm expressing my opinion on subjects that intrest me, just like the rest of the posters here. It's sad that since you disagree with my opinion, you class it is 'bitching'. Very typical of Catholics today and appropo to the points I made about the Church sex scandals.

Akalyte made a very relative point about the cultural change in the Catholic Church that created the environment where men pursued deviant sexual gratification were able to operate for a long period of time without being removed from positions of causing greater harm. The comments quickly turned to how unfairly the RC Church was/is treated by the mainstream media. That quickly turned into bitching about that, and there was no discussion about identifying the root causes that created or excacerbated the problem.

Sadly, the "love it or leave it" attitude is the pervasive and typical Catholic response. Don't complain, question, or challenge. Submit your will and intellect to the Clergy since they represent the Church. That's why you have Bishops make the short sighted decision to shuffle Fr. Geogahn to another parish and paying off the most recent victims. It was a poor decision to sheild the Church from scandal. Unfortunately, all that did was create even worse Scandal. I've seen droves of people (freinds and family) leave the Catholic Church and even reject Christianity because of the RC Church. I practiced and taught Catholicism for years. I do believe I have the right to 'beesh' about the RC Church here on this board.

[SJRod55]

BBC reported a Sexual Preditor pretended to be a 12 year old HS student for 2 years! Not a Catholic Priest, no mention of the Catholic Church - but how can this be allowed - where were the stops and checks?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Rod' post='1182948' date='Feb 2 2007, 09:40 AM']
BBC reported a Sexual Preditor pretended to be a 12 year old HS student for 2 years! Not a Catholic Priest, no mention of the Catholic Church - but how can this be allowed - where were the stops and checks?[/quote]Are you being sarcastic?
They guy disguised himself and had other adults present fake id to get him enrolled in school. He was eventually caught. But the point is, he was turned into the police, not transferred to another school or just quietly kicked out. The situation was made public and the proceedures surrounding verifying students is being examined. It's not like it was hushed up, the guy kicked out, and nothing was said to the police or parents to avoid a scandal that would cause people to criticise the school system. Maybe there were school personnel who didn't do their jobs, maybe not. Now that it's being made public and the police notified, things will be thoroughly reviewed. Sure there will be people who will blame the school officials without knowing the details. But the unfair heat is worth it because the majority of people will know the situation is being dealt with head-on, to correct any possible errors, not covered up to hide it and possibly let something similar happen again.

[Aloysius]

all of our institutions of authority are screwing up when it comes to how to deal with predators. judges are letting them out with light sentences; bishops moved them around from school to school; there have been cases where teachers have been merely fired, not reported to the authorities, and thus able to just move to another school. we need to deal with these people harshly and severely.

the cover-ups were wrong. some were misguided on ideas of trying to forgive, thinking these sick men would actually stop acting upon this pathology. some were more sinister attempts to just protect the public relations interests of the Church. they were all wrong.

that does not justify the leap from "horrible sinful bad administrators" to "incapable teachers" that you attempt to argue. not one of us believe that what the bishops did was correct... yet for no apparent reason you continue to try to convince us that the bishops were wrong as if that would help convince us our ideas of infallibility (which we never thought applied to administration) are wrong.

[SJRod55]

[quote]Are you being sarcastic?[/quote]

Sorry it was a poor choice of words.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1182967' date='Feb 2 2007, 07:21 AM']
all of our institutions of authority are screwing up when it comes to how to deal with predators. judges are letting them out with light sentences; bishops moved them around from school to school; there have been cases where teachers have been merely fired, not reported to the authorities, and thus able to just move to another school. we need to deal with these people harshly and severely.

the cover-ups were wrong. some were misguided on ideas of trying to forgive, thinking these sick men would actually stop acting upon this pathology. some were more sinister attempts to just protect the public relations interests of the Church. they were all wrong.

that does not justify the leap from "horrible sinful bad administrators" to "incapable teachers" that you attempt to argue. not one of us believe that what the bishops did was correct... yet for no apparent reason you continue to try to convince us that the bishops were wrong as if that would help convince us our ideas of infallibility (which we never thought applied to administration) are wrong.
[/quote]
umm, ditto?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1182967' date='Feb 2 2007, 10:21 AM']
that does not justify the leap from "horrible sinful bad administrators" to "incapable teachers" that you attempt to argue. not one of us believe that what the bishops did was correct... yet for no apparent reason you continue to try to convince us that the bishops were wrong as if that would help convince us our ideas of infallibility (which we never thought applied to administration) are wrong.
[/quote]I don't think it's a leap at all. The same people who are making these bad decisions are the 'men in the trenches' that are representing, teaching, and demonstrating what Catholic Christianity is.
The Church calls on it's faithful to submit their will and intellect to obedience of the Church Clergy. The Church also calls on it's Clergy to behave in a manner befitting their responsibilities. Binding obedience to men who don't fulfill their responsibilty is not reasonable, is it? If you can't trust or respect your priest and Bishop in the small things, how can you respect them in the big things? The Clergy are the human interface of the Institutional Church. That is where the practical rubber meets the road.
When the lay are getting bad liturgy, bad example, poor catechesis, constant discord, priest who aren't obedient, Bishops who aren't obedient, continued examples of basic moral failure, there is a problem. I don't talk in universals, but I am a realist. I personally know a good number of priests. My immediate and extended family have been very involved in our parishes. I have childhood friends who have become priests, and some family members have very close relationships with parish priests to the point we fly them in for weddings. I have neices who have been baptized by the Bishop. We are part of the 'In' crowd.
How many inside stories and examples does one have to hear or experience? I can honestly say, not a single member of my very large extended family has been molested by a priest. But we hear and know of the cases shared with us by priests and seen instances within our parishes. Put that with the many priests with drinking problems, gambling problems, various sexual addictions, various sexual proclivities, various theological and sociological opinions and actions, power trips, etc.

I don't expect perfection. I do expect the majoriy to at least try to do a good moral job, at least to the level they were working for a regular employer, much less the gravity of working for the Church.

These are the people who are the Moral Arbiters here on earth?

There are reasons why the Clergy are so discordant, disobedient, and contradictory. Becoming Clergy does not make them miraculously good. When the clergy as a group are just shades of gray, it's ludicrous to expect black and white guidance from them. To use the Catechisms work, the ability of today's Church to exercise anything with Infallibility is extremely rare to practically non-existent.

I cannot and do not accept Papal Infallibility in the context the Roman Catholic Church defines it. I cannot and do not accept the ability of the Roman Catholic Church to hold or weild Superior Authority over all other Churches. I cannot and do not submit my will and intellect to the human elements of an earthly Church that has not demonstrated a perponderance of good moral behavior that the same Church proclaims as a standard. I do agree with what the Church says, but disagree with the reality of what it really does.

At what point can you seperate the fabric of what the Church does with the foundation of what the Church proclaims? How does the Church TEACH? Through clearly defined Papal Bulls, Decrees from Oecumenical Councils, the Catechism, Official Clergy Spokesmen, Official statements from Bishops, Official statements from Cardinals, Official statements from Councils of Bishops, the Priest at the pulpit, the DRE in the classroom? With [u]whom[/u] do the faithful draw the line?

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Matt. 16:18[/b]
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm[/url][/quote]How many churches are founded?[quote][b]Rev. 21:9,14 [/b]
"And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73021.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73021.htm[/url][/quote]The Church has the foundations upon who?[quote][b]1 Tim. 3:15[/b]
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm[/url][/quote]What is the pillar and ground of the truth?[quote][b]1 John 4:6[/b]
"We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69004.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/69004.htm[/url][/quote]If we hear not the Apostles (Church) what do we show?[quote][b]Luke 10:16[/b]
"He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/49010.htm[/url] [/quote]If we are not with the Apostles (Church) how are we with Christ? If we hear the Apostles (Church) who do we really hear?

I wonder what the Church says about the infallible doctrines?[quote][b]Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite[/b]
[b]Can. 749 §1[/b]. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he [u][b]proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held[/b][/u].
[b]§2[/b]. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who [u][b]declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively[/b][/u]; [u]or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively[/u].
[b]§3[/b]. [b][u][color="#FF0000"]No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident[/color][/u][/b].
[url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM"]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM[/url][/quote]

Edited February 3, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]I don't expect perfection. I do expect the majoriy to at least try to do a good moral job, at least to the level they were working for a regular employer, much less the gravity of working for the Church.[/quote]

I think this is exactly what the majority are trying to do. They want to do their best. It is impossible to make the sacrifices needed to become a priest unless you have some sincerity.

St Peter himself was disobedient, a liar, a betrayer, and a complete fool. But he tried his best to improve and to serve God. I would not expect more of any clergyman (Catholic or Protestant) than Our Lord expected of St Peter.

[catholimaniac]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1183219' date='Feb 2 2007, 03:47 PM']At what point can you seperate the fabric of what the Church does with the foundation of what the Church proclaims? How does the Church TEACH? Through clearly defined Papal Bulls, Decrees from Oecumenical Councils, the Catechism, Official Clergy Spokesmen, Official statements from Bishops, Official statements from Cardinals, Official statements from Councils of Bishops, the Priest at the pulpit, the DRE in the classroom? With [u]whom[/u] do the faithful draw the line?
[/quote]


I was confirmed at the Easter Vigil of 2003 and I haven't found any inconsistency in Church teaching. I've been to mass all around the country and I'm amazed how the faith is the same from one parish to the next. True, there are bishops and priests who stray from the magisterium, (I haven't met one yet) but the Church herself remains pure and holy.

I think the days of being spoon fed our faith are over. Now, like never before, what the Magisterium of the Church is open to the laity. It's well informed Catholics, who are able to effectively catecize our own kind that are going to be the life blood of the Church in the years to come. For instance, I don't think any priest is going to full a fast one on anyone here at Phatmass. The Catholic Church is awesome, beautiful and glorious and I am so grateful the Lord brought me home.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1183219' date='Feb 2 2007, 03:47 PM']
At what point can you seperate the fabric of what the Church does with the foundation of what the Church proclaims? How does the Church TEACH? Through clearly defined Papal Bulls, Decrees from Oecumenical Councils, the Catechism, Official Clergy Spokesmen, Official statements from Bishops, Official statements from Cardinals, Official statements from Councils of Bishops, the Priest at the pulpit, the DRE in the classroom? With [u]whom[/u] do the faithful draw the line?
[/quote]
Interesting points from a Catholic 'ratzingerfanclub' blog that addresses the points I've made. I challeng you people to read it.
[url="http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/01/necessary-distinctions-prudential.html"]http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/...prudential.html[/url]

[Socrates]

All this has been dealt with ad nauseum in the past, so I'm not going to repeat in depth what others have already done plenty to explain.

The Pope is the only single person granted infallibility in teaching on faith and morals. Individual priests and bishops are not infallible in themselves, and if they contradict Rome in matters of faith and morals, they teach falsely.
Yes, there are priests (and even bishops) teaching heresy.

No one claims that infalibility extends to every single priest, and you are the only one who seems to wish to define infallibility in such a way.

And infalibility only extends to teaching on faith and morals; it does not extend to prudential judgment and opinion on issues outside of moral and theological teaching, nor does it mean that clergy cannot sin.

Being a priest, bishop, or even Pope, does not take away one's free will. Clergy are free to choose evil as well as good. They are not puppets.

This does not excuse wrongdoing on the part of any clergy, nor does it mean that we should be complacent about wrongdoing within the Church. Quite the opposite.

You want to define infalliblity in your own way, contrary to that of the Church (saying it means that no priest can error or commit sin, etc.) then claiming it is a sham because it does not live up to your own self-made definition.
Thus it is impossible to reason with you because you refuse to use reason.

Whatever the rest of your life may be like, your activity on this site seems to consist of nothing but negativity and irrationality, and I fail to see what positive objective you are trying to accomplish here.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1184740' date='Feb 4 2007, 05:15 PM']
All this has been dealt with ad nauseum in the past, so I'm not going to repeat in depth what others have already done plenty to explain.

The Pope is the only single person granted infallibility in teaching on faith and morals. Individual priests and bishops are not infallible in themselves, and if they contradict Rome in matters of faith and morals, they teach falsely.
Yes, there are priests (and even bishops) teaching heresy.

No one claims that infalibility extends to every single priest, and you are the only one who seems to wish to define infallibility in such a way.

And infalibility only extends to teaching on faith and morals; it does not extend to prudential judgment and opinion on issues outside of moral and theological teaching, nor does it mean that clergy cannot sin.

Being a priest, bishop, or even Pope, does not take away one's free will. Clergy are free to choose evil as well as good. They are not puppets.

This does not excuse wrongdoing on the part of any clergy, nor does it mean that we should be complacent about wrongdoing within the Church. Quite the opposite.

You want to define infalliblity in your own way, contrary to that of the Church (saying it means that no priest can error or commit sin, etc.) then claiming it is a sham because it does not live up to your own self-made definition.
Thus it is impossible to reason with you because you refuse to use reason.

Whatever the rest of your life may be like, your activity on this site seems to consist of nothing but negativity and irrationality, and I fail to see what positive objective you are trying to accomplish here.
[/quote]Soc,
Seriously. Do you even read my posts? Did you try reading the blog I linked to?

As is typical for Catholics, if there is any criticism of the Church they effectively worship, the person presenting criticism is irrational, negative, and/or a pointless heretic.

The RC Church demands obedience and submission of will to the Magesterium, whether the Magesterium is operating infalliblly or not. I NEVER said priests or bishops are neccessarily acting infallibly. I DO say that priests, bishops, cardinals, (the Ordinary Magisterium) often act fallibly, in direct contradiction to the what the "Official" RC Church "Teaches", but the average person is told to obey the 'Princes of the Church' and submit their will and intellect in obedience.

IF you would read the blog, along with the comments, various faithful and learned Catholic 'opinionists' discussing the reality of how Bishops and Priests preach and teach opinion while in official capacity, that isn't neccessarily the 'correct' RC teaching.

This problem is one of the roots of the Church sex scandals. New Opinion drifting away from historical RC custom (the whole concept of sexual chastity and the new more tolerant view of 'same sex attraction') which was/is an agenda of Clergy Bureaucrats that led to the 'pink palace seminaries'.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1185248' date='Feb 5 2007, 09:26 AM']
Soc,
Seriously. Do you even read my posts? Did you try reading the blog I linked to?

As is typical for Catholics, if there is any criticism of the Church they effectively worship, the person presenting criticism is irrational, negative, and/or a pointless heretic.

The RC Church demands obedience and submission of will to the Magesterium, whether the Magesterium is operating infalliblly or not. I NEVER said priests or bishops are neccessarily acting infallibly. I DO say that priests, bishops, cardinals, (the Ordinary Magisterium) often act fallibly, in direct contradiction to the what the "Official" RC Church "Teaches", but the average person is told to obey the 'Princes of the Church' and submit their will and intellect in obedience.

IF you would read the blog, along with the comments, various faithful and learned Catholic 'opinionists' discussing the reality of how Bishops and Priests preach and teach opinion while in official capacity, that isn't neccessarily the 'correct' RC teaching.
[/quote]
Yes, I read your posts, which are largely repetitive, and ignore the corrections of others on this boards. And I looked at that blog, though I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make by linking it. That blogger does a fair job of answering objections similar to yours, I thought. Perhaps you should cite something specific, rather than simply linking to a blog, and acting as though it somehow refutes the Catholic Faith. And what bloggers and internet "opinionists" say regarding the Church is hardly an authoritative source. Opinions are like you-know-whats. If you're going to debate Catholic doctrine, you're going to have to point to something more authoritative than "what some guy on the internet said."

As for when the Magisterium teaches infallibly, here's the "official" definition:[quote]"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.[/quote]
Infallibility applies to the Pope and to Ecumenical Councils when defining doctrine as divinely revealed.

What some liberal dissenting priest says on his own does not fall under this category, and is completely irrelevent to the Church's teaching authority.
You are the only one who claims that they do.

[quote]This problem is one of the roots of the Church sex scandals. New Opinion drifting away from historical RC custom (the whole concept of sexual chastity and the new more tolerant view of 'same sex attraction') which was/is an agenda of Clergy Bureaucrats that led to the 'pink palace seminaries'.[/quote]
The Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexuality is clear. Those who dissent are not teaching in line with the Magisterium.

The "historical RC custom" regarding sexual chastity is in fact the unchanging moral teaching of the Church.
Any contrary "New Opinion" is contary to the Church's teaching.

If you want to know what the Church teaches, read your Catechism, and read the Encyclicals, and texts of the Ecumenical Councils.

You have repeatedly distorted the truth and made outright false statements regarding what the Church teaches. You have been repeatedly corrected, so this cannot be blamed on mere ignorance - it seems wilfull distortion.

What is your purpose on here? (Be honest.)
To try to make others hate the Church as much as you do? To try to piss people off? To simply wallow in your own bitterness?

In any case, it's pointless, and is getting tiresome.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1185969' date='Feb 5 2007, 11:05 PM']
Yes, I read your posts, which are largely repetitive, and ignore the corrections of others on this boards. And I looked at that blog, though I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make by linking it. That blogger does a fair job of answering objections similar to yours, I thought. Perhaps you should cite something specific, rather than simply linking to a blog, and acting as though it somehow refutes the Catholic Faith. And what bloggers and internet "opinionists" say regarding the Church is hardly an authoritative source. Opinions are like you-know-whats. If you're going to debate Catholic doctrine, you're going to have to point to something more authoritative than "what some guy on the internet said."

As for when the Magisterium teaches infallibly, here's the "official" definition:
Infallibility applies to the Pope and to Ecumenical Councils when defining doctrine as divinely revealed.

What some liberal dissenting priest says on his own does not fall under this category, and is completely irrelevent to the Church's teaching authority.
You are the only one who claims that they do.
The Church's teaching on the immorality of homosexuality is clear. Those who dissent are not teaching in line with the Magisterium.

The "historical RC custom" regarding sexual chastity is in fact the unchanging moral teaching of the Church.
Any contrary "New Opinion" is contary to the Church's teaching.

If you want to know what the Church teaches, read your Catechism, and read the Encyclicals, and texts of the Ecumenical Councils.

You have repeatedly distorted the truth and made outright false statements regarding what the Church teaches. You have been repeatedly corrected, so this cannot be blamed on mere ignorance - it seems wilfull distortion.

What is your purpose on here? (Be honest.)
To try to make others hate the Church as much as you do? To try to piss people off? To simply wallow in your own bitterness?

In any case, it's pointless, and is getting tiresome.
[/quote]
Dude,
Am I a burr under your saddle? LOL

I guess I'm doing the same thing someone like goldenchild or another non-"R" catholic does here, post their opinion. Sorry if you don't like it and if it is so challenging you wish I'd just go away so you won't have to deal with it. Put me on ignore like so many others have.

If you weren't so sophmoricly accepting of 'whatever' the RC Church 'professes', you would have gotten the point of the blog and my posts. Instead, all you see is "red" if somebody has the audacity to criticize 'your' RC Church. The recurent theme (you call it repetetitive) of my posts is the inconsistency of what the RC Church 'says' it teaches and what it's priests, bishops, and cardinals run around and "teach" by word and action.

You claim the Church has 'always taught against the evils of homosexuality'. I would agree that seems to be what the printing in the Catechism says. But what about how the Church teaches in "[u][b]action[/b][/u]"?. You have the problem of "pink palace seminaries" that is well known and chronicled in many books, articles, and blogs from faithful RCatholics. Visit a few RCatholic parishes or gathering of priests and you'd find more testosterone at a PowderPuff Girls festival. When the RCatholic Church attempts to 'teach' according to it's historical abhorence of homosexuality, the RChurch had to first water down the document and it was still met with widespread dissension, disgust, disobedience, and condemnation from priests and bishops.

The RCChurch is practically consistent in very few things. People with short memory and/or poor analytical skills follow along with the percieved 'status quo' because after all, 'it is the Princes of the Church or the Ordained Pastor who is speaking, and they must be obeyed'. Besides, everyone 'knows' the RC Church is constant and infallible in matters of faith and morals.

The RC Church is probably infallible in fundamental principles in matters of faith. I accept that by faith and practical thought. Effectively transmitting that Charism to all matters of faith and morals via priests and bishops acting as the Ordinary Magisterium is a tortured stretch in logic and effectively minimizes crtical thought from the average lay person. THAT is the root of the problems within the RC Church. When understanding of Natural Law (common sense) is so offended and contradicted, people object. It is then when lay driven dissension challenges every aspect of an Institutional Church, even Principles that shouldn't be challenged like woman priests and gay marriage.

Sure, other Religions and Institutions have problems with sex scandals. People are human and imperfect. The difference is whether these other organizations have let fundamental errors and contradictions to their principles become woven into the fabric of their bureacracy. What would have been isolated instances of human frailty, has become tremendous scandals that have destroyed countless lives and destroyed the faith of thousands others.

The RCChurch bureacracy overreached it's authority and rights for obedience and could not discipline or control what it's priests and bishops run around and do. This created another huge scandal. Just like in Luther's day when the bishops and priests were abusing their power and authority and the Central RC Church was reluctant to correct an obvious problem, these sexual scandasl will be the fuse that lights the bomb again.

Luther wasn't 100% wrong because bishops and priests were NOT behaving in accordance with RC Church principles. But because the RC Church would not correct the problem and instead spent more effort quashing justified dissension, the RC Church opened the door to the Protestant Rebellion. Not until that catastrophe did the RC Church act to reform itself.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Anomaly