Diocese of Scranton adds collection to boost priests' benefits

What does loosing "not us" mean? If it means that the Church will set loose new leadership that is not Mr. Martino and his sycophants -- i.e., "not us" -- then that seems an excellent outcome!

Jeff's facts are pretty accurate, except that Galileo wasn't tried by the "Inquisition" but by a small board of individuals. Galileo was told not to teach his scientific theory, as well as to keep out of theology. He did not recant the scientific theory, landed before another "trial" (which was more like a committee meeting), and was found "vehemently suspected of heresey" for teaching as a truth that the sun was the center of the universe. He continued to practice the faith while he was kept under (comfortable) house arrest. His book was banned for some 120 years.

There is no urban legend about the facts of the case; however, Galileo's trials have been used unfairly to paint the church as anti-science. If there is any "legend" it is that Galileo is sometimes painted as a rebel who scoffed at Church teachings and led the way in some great scientific parade -- wrong. The church also sometimes tries to paint him as a person who used his scientific theories to re-interpret Scripture. Actually, he was trying to reconcile the Scriptural view of the universe with science so that people could believe both, and was doing this as an admitted Catholic layman, not a Biblical scholar. But, because his writings were very popular, some church leaders balked at both the science and his explanations. He was a victim, not the leader of a movement.

The Diocese seems to want to switch from being a business with stockholders (the faithful) into being a church with faithful congregations, when convenient. As a business, it wants the stockholders to take responsibility for its serious financial position. As a Church, it tells the faithful not to question any financial actions or expect any information. For instance, it wants to be a business in providing retirees with health care and pensions -- an admirable goal -- and when closing schools that are not solvent. Yet, when the stockholders question or comment on those decisions, or ask for a say in them, they are told "We're the church, you're the faithful, and you don't get a say and aren't owned an explanation." When the teachers want to unionize, they are told "We're different because we're a church"; but when the churches are being closed, the faithful are told "We're a business and we can't sustain all this overhead without more money."

There is no major corporation or not for profit business that withholds financial information (including the salary of the CEO, although I think that's a more symbolic than real issue), refuses to answer questions, has no board of directors or advisors, never meets with the stockholders, and doesn't talk to the press.

I think the church needs to go back to being a church on matters of faith and dogma; then, it has to be a not for profit business on matters of growth, land holdings, etc. More transparency in the governance of the EARTHLY matters of the church would help tremendously and would give many of the posters here more comfort with the Diocese's actions. Most aren't questioning dogma or faith; the people mentioned in Andrew's post are questioning worldly actions and inability to get worldly information about the church-on-earth that they and their families have sustained (and will continue to long after the Bishop is elsewhere). They are hardly "fair weather friends" and deserve much more than the snide and sarcastic questioning of their prayer life and charity. They deserve a seat at the table.

Even Judas got that.

It would also help if folks who profess to be Catholics in good standing would not use a politically-based slur whose only intent is to be offensive when referring to a politican and elected leader. Catholics don't like the clergy to be referred to as child molesters and that is reasonable. It seems just as reasonable to expect a purported member of the clergy to avoid phrases like Hussein Obama, which is used expressly because it is offensive and inflammatory, trying to get the uninformed and the unimaginative to believe that the American president is Muslim and a terrorist. Using it reduces a morally-based pro-life argument to a Republican talking point.

So essencially what your saying is that when the going gets tough, the people get going.

If that is the way it is, they let them go. After all, many of Jesus friends abandoned him when it got tough- why should his Church experience a different reality?

Andrew, I have no use for "fair weather friends" Jesus nor his Church have use for "fair weather Catholics." It would do you and your "Catholic" friends well to remember that when they point a finger at the bishop and blame him for all of the problems of the Diocese. Five more are pointing back at them.

What have they or YOU done to encourage vocations? What have they or YOU done to make their churches GROW and develop? How many people have YOU or they brought into the Church through YOUR/their efforts at evangelization? How many potential priests have YOU/they encouraged to a vocation? Finally, are these people supporting their Church in a meaningful way, or throwing in their weekly dollar (or spare change) demanding the Church thrive off of it, wondering why the Church is in dire financial straits? Lest you are "offended" by that statement, I DO NOT refer to those themselves who have been effected by the economy by either a loss of job, pay cuts, layoffs, etc.

It is FACT that the Catholic Church denounced Galileo for his theory of heliocentrism. The Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616, and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do.

When he later again defended his views in his most famous work, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," he was forced to recant this theory which we now know to be true, and this great scientist, Galileo, was forced to spend the remainder of his life under house arrest.

And here, in 2009, you are trying to deny this and give us revisionist history.

I only chose this one, because it is well-known, despite your shocking attempt to deny it. I could give you plenty more examples of where scientific thinking that we now know to be UNIMPEACHABLY TRUE was labeled as heresy by the Catholic Church via Spanish and Roman Inquisitions and for which, people were arrested, tortured, and even executed.

Unbelievable. Yes, I just checked the calendar again, and this is indeed the year 2009, not 1632.

Look, Father Bechtel - I never claimed to have all the answers, and I do not appreciate you attempting to suggest that I did. Yet it is CLEARLY evident that the Church does not have all the answers either.

And again, in the case of a high-risk pregnancy, it is similar retrograde patriarchal 1632 thinking that places little value on a woman's life, where the Catholic clergy would evidently just stand by and do nothing as she dies - just as they refuse to allow women into the priesthood (again a "tradition" that is NOT backed up by scripture).

Society has evolved. We have learned much and grown much since Jesus taught us. Yet the Catholic Church lags far behind.

Negatively you are asserting that the Catholic Church has offered a "wrong" interpretation of Scripture, positively you are asserting that YOU have the correct one. In other words the Universal Church for 2000 years doesn't know what it is talking about, but Jeff does. I am listening. Please produce or provide a list or lists of all the verses of Scripture you believe the Church is "misunderstanding."

Do you serioulsy want to bring up Gallieo? Jeff, do you realize that serious historians admit that this idea that Science and Religion are in conflict is a 19th century fabrication, not to mention the exaggeration of the whole Gallieo affair? No reputable historian, or even atheist tries to argue along such lines anymore.

In any case you are the one alleging the Church does not know what it is talking about so it is up to you to prove it. So far I have only seen opinions, but no facts to back them up. I have not back peddled. There is NO COMPROMISE on the issue of Abortion. None. Got it? Direct Abortion is always and everywhere WRONG. It is ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE MURDER of a child.

I repeat, get over yourself. When you are talking about an organization that runs a budget in the MILLIONS, accounting down to the last paper clip is for all intents and purposes impossible- unless you want to pay some guy good money to search for the five or ten dollars that doesn't check, etc.

I don't know what "other" means in the report. I don't sit up at night and worry about it like you do. In fact I don't really care. I donate my money to the appeal and that is that. I trust them. You don't. Your problem, not mine. If it concerns you so much, call them and ask. It doesn't concern me, so that is that. Now, if you are concerned that money is going to things you don't want it to go to, the answer is quite simple: Make a RESTRICTED donation. In that way, by LAW the Diocese must use the donation for what YOU designate.

So you make 52K a year. That number is meaningless unless you have some actual documentation. I can tell you priests make less then that even including the perks. As for the bishop, as I KEEP SAYING, I think it logical to suppose that if we assume he DOES recieve a salary that it would be around what a PASTOR recieves.

However as I am not a bishop, and no bishop has ever told me what their salary is, and since I really don't care one way or the other, I can only speculate.

Now by all means I think we have an obligation to question our religious leaders. Some may not be comfortable with that, a category that I think probably describes Bishop Martino (who hails from the "pay, pray, obey" wing of the Catholic Church). However to be taken seriously, these kinds of questions need to be consistently asked, not just out of a knee-jerk reaction to another Bishop Martino gaff...real or perceived.

All this noted, I personally don't care what Bishop Martino earns; rather, I think a caring shepherd for the Diocese of Scranton is worth the cost of a generous salary. The real question though is whether nor not Bishop Martino is worthy of a generous salary, as judged by his words and actions.

Your another one who needs to get over himself. First of all, I can't preach on a specific issue (such as the one you raised) without preparing. That is common sense. You don't just get up and talk or speak without reflecting on what you want to say and doing necessary research. I have general information inside my head, but you are getting specific, and that requires research.

As for Tradition, you sound very much like the Protestants- assuming Tradition gets corrupted and we can't trust it. Hence they would affirm it's usefulness, even desirability, but deny we should build binding doctrine on it. This is where you get into the whole debate around Sola Scriptura. Much, much ink has been spilled on that subject on both sides. And both sides have misrepresented the others position. (I myself CRINGE when I read some of the common Catholic Apologetic material proporting to deal with Sola Scriptura. They misconstrue, misrepresent, misunderstand, and misapply the protestant doctrine and wind up refuting a straw man.)

For Protestants Scripture Norms Tradition, where as for Catholics, Scritpure is the CORE of Tradition and functions alongside Tradition as a mirror. Scripture reflects in writting what the Church believes in her Heart. Since what is believed by Heart is larger then words can describe or signify, Tradition is larger then Scripture yet encompasses it. What is not aparent on the literal words on the page, or to an exegete is aparent when read in light of the Faith the Church has recieved.

It is in that sense Scripture functions to Norm Tradition, the "Norm of Norms without Norm," yet is never read apart from it. Scriptrue cannot (as protestants tend to do) be cut off from Tradition, it cannot be seperated from it, lest it become a dead entity. It is only in the Church where the Words of Scripture live, breath and are given context since it is the Church which had already recieved those words in her Heart. In any case since Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit and develops through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have no fear of corruption.

So, the answer to your question "How much of this is the result of genuine moral and philosophical introspection by the Christian Community, vs what was invented by the Church" is going to depend on whether you take a Protestant or Catholic View of Tradition.

Furthermore if you take a Protestant View, the answer is going to depend upon where you fall in their camp: the Liberal camp or the Fundamentalist Camp. Essencially the Liberal camp believes there is nothing unique about Scripture, that it is not a Divine Book. It is a fairytale about a person who probably didn't live, or if he lived didn't really do much or say anything unique except love each other. (Of course why follow Jesus then?)

For the Fundamentalist Camp, Scripture has become for them what the Blessed Sacrament is for US- something that directly mediates the presence of God. (Which is understandable given their rejection of the Blessed Sacrament, and the rest of the Sacraments- power abhors a vacuum.) Scripture for the Fundamentalists is a essencially a Sacrament. They have rejected the 7 sacraments and turned Scripture into a Sacrament. Scritpure however was not designed to function as a Sacrament, which is why God has given us the 7 Sacraments.

Scripture is God's Word, and was designed to move us to Faith as we hear the Word proclaimed. Scritpure says "Faith commeth by hearing, and hearing the Word of God." In this way it produces Faith so that we can be moved by Faith to encounter God more fully through the Sacraments whereby God communicates his very self to us.

So you have to tell me where you fall before we can go any further. Also if you are making the accusation that our bishop is teaching something contrary to Scripture, it is on YOU to prove your assertion.