Help! Ive just read this article on a general non Catholic qausi intellectual general discussion board, its news to me, has anyone heard of this story before. I need to blow this load of horse manure out of the water asap, but want to make sure I dont trip over myself, any assistance is appreciated.

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse Expulsion threat in secret documents Antony Barnett, public affairs editor Sunday August 17, 2003 The Observer

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'

British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.

He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'

Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.

He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.

Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.

Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'

A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.

He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.

'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

Additional research by Jason Rodrigues

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003

Answers

top it

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

It's rubbish, Kiwi. Here are three brief news releases (from a Catholic anti-defamation organization) that should help you understand the situation and refute the bigots:

Link #1
Link #2
Link #3

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

It's pretty remarkable that even liberals would steep so low as to defame Pope John XXIII, who was not only probably the most beloved Holy Father of the last century (maybe even more than John Paul II?) but is loved often because he is (incorrectly) conceived of as a liberal himself.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), August 18, 2003.

To Kiwi, et al:
There are no classified documents in the Catholic Church, per se. They may be in the confidential mode, directed to individual parties, but not ''stealthy''. To believe, on the testimony of biased news sources, something so disingenuous or paranoid of our Holy Father is a great mistake. Here:''--Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way-- restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office. Under penalty of excommunication,''

Portrays this matter in a mean-spirited way. I will not admit this is true. We must consider the source; and Britain is no hotbed of Catholic-lovers, is it?

The call to ''secrecy'' in those cases is clearly misinterpreted. We see it as the secrecy of the confessional, and that is morally sacred. This is why there's a penalty attached, of excommunication. No priest must EVER divulge the confessed sins of a penitent, which calls for that penalty. The Pope is stating this moral position, not surreptitious secrecy over a scandal.

But no one will convince Catholic-bashers. This is their hour; regrettably. It's our call to penitence, at the end of the day, in my opinion. Our diverse sins, not just the priests' scandals have brought these things to pass. We need to open our eyes to the truth; and not just because the world is suddenly vindictive.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 18, 2003.

Shalom Kiwi,

We came across an interesting Scripture that seems to foretell the sex scandal and this above article's claim that profanes "the Holy ones" in the Vatican you quote above. Why would Yeshua Who has protected our Church for two thousand years allow this to happened? We wonder if the answer may also be beneath this text and we give our own understanding of what this Word is trying to teach our church in the website below:

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/Yeshuaslight/scandal.html

Shalom,

C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), August 18, 2003.

C & C,

Your reasoning would be appropriate if the recent scandal were a pervasive problem affecting a large proportion of the clergy. It is not. Priests are sinners like anyone else. It is to be expected therefore that a few priests might sin in this particular area (fewer than 0.5% of priests have been accused of any wrongdoing in this "scandal", and far fewer have actually been found guilty of anything). That hardly constitutes "utter destruction" of the Sanctuary, or Satan "prevailing against the Church"! It is simply the personal sin of a relative handful of men, compounded by the personal sin of a few other men who tried to suppress the truth, and further blown far out of proportion by the secular press who have used the situation as an excuse for attacking the Church. Surely you don't think this is a new development? Men have always sinned. Priests have always sinned. Bishops have always sinned. The Church remains strong and pure in its teaching, protected from the powers of evil, even when some of its trusted clergy reject its teaching and accept evil into their individual lives.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2003.

Thankyou gents, Gene nice to see you back again, and Shalom CC, Ill have a read of your link when I get a chance.

John is the Catholic league a reliable source if I want to use then again in the future?

Thanks Again

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Shalom Paul,

Perhaps we did not make ourselves very clear. We were not stating that the sex scandal was pervasive, but rather a symptom of the very issue. We suspect you would agree that denial of one sin helps open the door to another, yet the root would be the sin that is being denied. In this particular case, it seems that Scripture is stating that fear is the root of the problem, just like it was for our first father who sinned (when he denied Yeshua three times), whereas the sex scandal is just a symptom a deeper problem.

As for the few “mediators” that sinned in our Church, which is no greater than the general population, it would seem that we should ask why then in the last generation was she singled out and why has this sin of only a small fraction of our priesthood cause tainting upon the reputation and testimony of our innocent Papacy and Magisterium? When we put forth our suspicions, we are not seeking to undermine the teaching of our Church (especially when we defend her against Protestant attacks), but rather are trying to get people to see that this can of worms, this blowing the facts out of proportion, this media frenzy, and misapplication of guilt were possibly foreshadowed in Is.43.25.28.

Is.43.28 states “I Am He Who blots away your sins for My Name” and the only One we can see there is Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus the Christ) because He saved us though His cross, and blots away our sins by His grace. Then in the next verse we are being told those in Him are to remember Him as if we forgot Him, and put forward our case which we cannot do because we not saved by our own merit but by His mercy. Then he says, “your first father sinned”, and in our eyes only Catholics have a “first father” (Protestants reject him) in Pope Saint Peter, and he sinned when he denied Yeshua three times out of fear. Thus, we are not saying that our Church leadership is guilty here, but rather she is being blamed and again, the reason seems to be connected to the sin of first pope.

Then text turns to what we found at first a very puzzling passage: “I delivered Jacob to utter destruction and Israel to mockery”, verse 28. The first definition for Jacob we found in Is.48.1:

“Here this O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and who came from the waters of Judah…”

In Jewish thinking, water is the Torah and so we draw from this that Jacob whom He “delivered to utter destruction” as being the Jews, and this in turn led us to the Holocaust where Jews were almost exterminated. Therefore, it is Jacob who was to go unto destruction, not Israel the sacred ones who were “profaned”, “blasphemed” falsely accused! Further our Church teaches we are “Israel” and this would mean He also delivered this ridicule upon us, and this is exactly what she faced when she has tried to apologized, corrected those handful of sinning mediators, as well as teach against same sex unions recently. We keep facing persecution since the Holocaust from the Protestant world (“Get out of her my people” rhetoric) and the secular media (the press was far from fair in that “scandal coverage”).

Interestingly, we recently discovered that in the late 19th century Pope Leo XIII was brought before HaShem’s throne in a vision and was shown that HaShem would allow hasatan (satan) to "sift" Peter's church in the twentieth century, just as Yeshua once allowed hasatan to sift our first father. We do not see this as a coincidence but as a foreshadowing, and just as Pope Peter sinned out fear so too we suspect the text states our Church did during the holocaust.

Therefore, the sin this text seems to be condemning our Church is not sexual impropriety, or a cover-up by a few foolish leaders in America, but fear that handicapped our leaders in Rome from doing all that they could do save the Jews, as this text seems by our understanding to imply. Yes, she has partially dealt with this, particularly through our Pope John Paul II; however the fact that it took so long for her to say this is why we suspect Yeshua allowed a minor error to get blown out of proportion.

>>>The Church remains strong and pure in its teaching, protected from the powers of evil, even when some of its trusted clergy reject its teaching and accept evil into their individual lives. >>>

We agree, however please note that Yeshua’s own testimony was perfect and yet this didn’t stop His generation from judging Him a sinner anymore than it will stop this generation from judging His Church. For by her own words: “The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom ONLY through this final Passover, when she WILL FOLLOW her L-rd in His death and resurrection”. Because of this, we believe Yeshua says to our blessed Church: “Fear not, not be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are MY witnesses!”, Is.44.8. In our eyes, this is very similar to what He said to Peter: “but I have prayed for you that your faith will not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." (Lk.22.32) and yet Pope Peter was martyred.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), August 19, 2003.

Yes, Kiwi, the "Catholic League" is a fantastic source in many ways. I have been reading their material (mostly mailed newsletters) for over 15 years, so I know that they are totally orthodox and truly tenacious in fighting against bigotry. Here are links for their home page and their section that refutes most of the lies told against Pope Pius XII:

Home
Pius XII

If you want your "mind blown," take a look at any of their yearly reports on anti-Catholicism here.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 19, 2003.

Mr. Foegen,
We believe ''first father'' is a reference to Adam. The apostle Peter is not being named at all in the Old Testament. You are simply mistaken as well, saying that Our Lord ''allowed Peter to be sifted.''

His words are, ''Satan has desired you,'' (plural) the twelve; in order to sift them as wheat. But Christ prayed for Peter to the Father. That his faith would not fail-- meaning he was not sifted personally, even during the night of Christ's trial-- he was humbled in his human weakness, according to God's Will. Previously Peter had been always impetuous and self-assured; i.e., carrying a sword. This was his comedown.

Then, once he had turned again (after the threefold denial) Peter was to confirm his brethren. This is the Pope's mission; to sanctify & confirm us as Christ's people on earth. Please consider for yourself and for the sake of the truth these alternative interpretations; and then see if you can rightly proceed with the idea our past sins may explain these later consequences. But you would have to rationalize. --Peace!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 19, 2003.

Shalom Eugene,

You had mentioned that:

>>>We believe ''first father'' is a reference to Adam. >>>

To begin with, in what context does "we" refer? We only noticed one name signed at the bottom of your post, so would this refer to a group or even the Church's position which e have yet to see? As for us, you will find "we" because there are two of us, husband and wife, thus we sign "C & C".

As for the possibility that "first father" refers to Adam, we can find some evidence, however the rest of the passages must remain in context with this and we would like to see your full explanation to prove your point before we begin to consider beyond our own.

For the point of debate, we cannot accept your claim that:

>>>The apostle Peter is not being named at all in the Old Testament. >>>

We cannot accept this statement because by this reasoning, we would have to dismiss Yeshua (Jesus) as the Messiah because His Name is not mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, we know there are many references to Him, even if Judah does not see it themselves. In fact, we believe we have found several places that foreshadow our Church, our Papal position and our Eucharistic Sacrifice. True these are often found beneath the surface in the spiritual, allegorical or even anagogical senses, however this does not dismiss their validity. For this reason, we have found that some passages hold multiple "interpretations". For example, in Isaiah 53, Christians see this fulfilled through Yeshua, yet when reviewed in the original Hebrew there are both singular and plural attributes which Judah points out have not been fulfilled. We do not see a problem for we suspect we understand both meanings here. Indeed, there may be a similar case made for your claim, but it still must be held in context and explained beyond one sentence.

>>>You are simply mistaken as well, saying that Our Lord ''allowed Peter to be sifted.'' His words are, ''Satan has desired you,'' (plural) the twelve; in order to sift them as wheat. But Christ prayed for Peter to the Father. That his faith would not fail-- meaning he was not sifted personally, even during the night of Christ's trial-- he was humbled in his human weakness, according to God's Will. Previously Peter had been always impetuous and self- assured; i.e., carrying a sword. This was his comedown.>>>

We disagree with your premise that we are wrong to state that our L- rd allowed Peter to be sifted. First, by implication you are stating that hasatan (satan) is more powerful than Yeshua or even HaShem. Secondly, Yeshua says (in Luke) to Peter, "...and when you turn again, strengthen your brethren", which shows that Peter will falter. More evidence to this is that Yeshua told Peter here that he will deny Him three times, yet we also find (in Matt.10.33) that Yeshua said, "Whoever denies Me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

To further our point, we do recognize that the word "you" is plural, but we see a "hint" of a deeper meaning that would foreshadow that one day a pope would also be sifted again, and this is evidenced we believe when we learned that Pope Leo XIII had a vision in which hasatan was granted permission to “sift” His Church in twentieth century. Part of the reason we came to this conclusion is that after Yeshua stated His words about "sifting of the wheat" in the plural, the rest of the text is completely in the singular. Also, please note that nothing of the "sifting" of the other apostles is given for that night except what happened to Peter, our first pope.

Therefore, for us to acknowledge that your interpretation is valid, you will have to substantiate more evidence to your claim. And even if it does, it still doesn't seem to nullify what we have gleaned from Scripture.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), August 20, 2003.

Dear Mr. Foegen,
You are apparently ostentatious in character. That's OK; but if you're a Catholic in truth, you will be more careful how you interpret scripture. You are very mistaken about those selections you quote. Christ made His Church quite impervious to error, giving her the Holy Spirit as Advocate and Comforter. There is no way we could accept your bowdlerizations of the Pope being ''first father'', or sifted. All your blather about ahsatan and striking out L--d in these posts is wasted on the faithful.

I have trouble believing the last post before this, purporting to be Paul is really Paul's. We have a practical joker in our midst, who appropriates the names of our people; posting false messages. Paul would never call himself masturbator, as we all know. Nor would he mistreat you just because you misconstrue the meanings of the Word Of God. But just to be practical, let me suggest you cease & desist giving free lessons to us here. None of us is susceptible to such poor megillah as yours. Shalom, Sir; Ciao and keep studying. Or; --Study better for a change.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 20, 2003.

Shalom Eugene,

You wrote:

>>>You are apparently ostentatious in character. >>>

How are we ostentatious by simply asking you to show us the allege error by either Scripture or from our Church’s teachings, considering it was you who stated that we were wrong. We only desire for you prove your claim upon us (would you ask for anything less from us?), including explaining your full position within the context of that passage. We never stated your position was erroneous or even false, but we would need evidence before we could accept it. Also, by past experiences we have seen where there can be multiple meanings (as we noted about Isaiah 53), so indeed your position can be valid if proven so, but it still would not contradict our own. So, by your own claim, where does this imply pretension or lack of modesty upon our part?

>>> That's OK; but if you're a Catholic in truth, you will be more careful how you interpret scripture. >>>

We are and we follow the rules of Scriptural interpretation given to us by Vatican II as we seek to “learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures” Cat.2653. Yet there are other teachings in the Catechism equally important especially those on how we should treat others in the Church we perceive are in error.

>>>You are very mistaken about those selections you quote. >>>

Perhaps, but for us to accept that as true we would need proof, and sometimes that includes the authority behind it.

>>> Christ made His Church quite impervious to error, giving her the Holy Spirit as Advocate and Comforter. >>>

Scripture and our Church state that she holds the right to loosen and bind (as given first to Peter), and this evidences the doctrine of infallibility, which is in regards to moral teachings, not every word uttered or action taken. For example, even Peter made an error (Gal.2.11-14) while as leader/pope of the Church, yet his teachings of doctrine are sound and without error. Further modern evidence can be found from our Church’s own ecclesiastical document “We Remember”:

“We cannot know how many Christians in countries occupied or ruled by the Nazi powers or their allies were horrified at the disappearance of their Jewish neighbors and yet were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. For Christians, this heavy burden of conscience of their brothers and sisters during the Second World War must be a call to penitence.”

“We deeply regret the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the Church. We make our own what is said in the Second Vatican Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate, which unequivocally affirms: "The Church ... mindful of her common patrimony with the Jews, and motivated by the Gospel's spiritual love and by no political considerations, deplores the hatred, persecutions and displays of anti-Semitism directed against the Jews at any time and from any source".”

SHE states that fear within her own flock aided and abetted the Nazis it was not just us. Also, we still suspect we have such evidence in Is.43.25-44.8 as well, though if we are truly in error in our understanding it seems a reasonable request to ask how.

>>> There is no way we could accept your bowdlerizations of the Pope being ''first father'', or sifted. All your blather about hasatan and striking out L--d in these posts is wasted on the faithful. >>>

Again, it seems that we have a debate over opinions since proof has yet to be established to cease our position. However, we have seen evidence by this interpretation to support our Church against Protestant charges and attacks regarding papacy, the calling of our priests “father” and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Therefore, we feel we need the proof to either refine or dismiss such a powerful testimony that Protestants constantly fail to take down themselves, which seems to have helped bring a small number to our faith. Again, this is the reason we request proof, not to be arrogant but to be shown any potential errors in our testimony. Besides, without such requests, how many people would fall into the traps made by Protestants when they make statements that “sound reasonable”? Also, how do you then explain the same language given to Pope Leo XII? For us this too needs to be addressed.

>>>I have trouble believing the last post before this, purporting to be Paul is really Paul's. We have a practical joker in our midst, who appropriates the names of our people; posting false messages. Paul would never call himself masturbator, as we all know. Nor would he mistreat you just because you misconstrue the meanings of the Word Of God. >>>

We are new here, so we are unaware of such dealings as this. It would be comforting to see such actions end by the perpetrator themselves if they indeed claim to be a believer in the G-d of Av’raham, Yitzhak and Yaakov (or for those who prefer, the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

>>>But just to be practical, let me suggest you cease & desist giving free lessons to us here. None of us is susceptible to such poor megillah as yours. Shalom, Sir; Ciao and keep studying. Or; --Study better for a change. >>>

Again, we were giving our opinion, not “lessons”. And since evidence has yet to be given otherwise, it seems there are two opinions.

Also, we find it interesting that you seem to be familiar with Hebrew; what type of background do you have?

Lastly as a side note, we previously stated in our earlier post that we are a couple (as evidenced by our signature), so why do you divide what “no man shall put asunder”?

Shalom, Corey & Carol Foegen (aka C & C)

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), August 21, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Eugene.

As Corey and Carol Foegen mentioned, they are new here and getting used to the forum. I can tell that we will have to become accustomed to them, too, for they have a way of expressing themselves that is atypical here -- probably because of their unusual background. I hope that they won't mind if I introduce them to all of us by suggesting that we click on these links:

Link 1.
Link 2.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

Oops! I forgot to say that the second site says that the first site is maintained by the Foegens (as does the e-mail link at the bottom of the first site). JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 21, 2003.

Dear C & C,
I'm not really prepared, I confess, to debate all the points you're making with such self-assurance. I could work all day, and possibly reach your depth of passion, but I can't.

If ostentation is too unkind as a description of you, forgive me. Merriam Webster has it,-- Synonyms for ostentation: SHOWY, chichi, flamboyant, orchidaceous, peacockish, peacocky, pretentious, splashy, swank. (Not very flattering.)

I'm a sinner too. I wish to say merely, I don't agree with your sense of these scriptural passages. They seem a bit profound where reasonable will do. That's why I called it megillah. No, I'm not Yiddish; I just love Yiddish buzz-buzz. Kosher and scnorrer and chutzpa make me happy when I say them! Ha! Jews make me happy.

But not so much that I would ever agree with them that the Catholic Church failed to help Jews during World War II. Because that's a calumny.

Nor so much that I would believe our Holy Faith is under an Old Testament microscope with ''first father'' applicable in any way to the Pope.

It's not Kosher, C-C. It seems a very disrespctful attitude, and it brings out my Spanish instincts. The Irish say, ''It gets my Irish up,'' --So then, megillah gets my Espanol up.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 21, 2003.

Shalom Eugene,

We can understand about being very busy. We ourselves have four children (the oldest is 12), we home school, keep a website with interests in the Hebrew Catholic movement and visit some message boards. Still, we always try to find some time to study these Scriptures and unfortunately what you are dealing with is several years of study and previous discussions; not only from each other but also outside of us. This doesn’t mean we do not have more to learn or could not help others learn either. Nonetheless, we still welcome discussions that can help enlighten one another in His truth, and slow dialogue does not bother us for we have preference towards that.

>>>I'm a sinner too. I wish to say merely, I don't agree with your sense of these scriptural passages. They seem a bit profound where reasonable will do. That's why I called it megillah. No, I'm not Yiddish; I just love Yiddish buzz-buzz. Kosher and scnorrer and chutzpa make me happy when I say them! Ha! Jews make me happy. >>>

We are also sinners for “all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of G-d” and “those that are forgiven much, love much”. As for our studies being profound, it may have been due to the Jesuit influence in the area we grew up, for Jesuits are deep thinkers. And our experience tells us that HaShem has several layers of insight within His word as does our Catechism. As some people say, it is like a song. A child can enjoy the melody, a young person its rhythm, an adult its lyrics, while a master musician can take all these things and more. So it is the same for Scripture, there is a little of something for everyone and it all connects. It is for this reason we would like to have a Church leader review our materials to either point out any errors or just refine what we have, which we believe could yield far greater fruit in our ministry.

>>>But not so much that I would ever agree with them that the Catholic Church failed to help Jews during World War II. Because that's a calumny. >>>

We never claimed she did not help. In fact if it were not for her efforts, how much devastating would the holocaust have been? We personally recognize that the Church was handicapped during those days though not by her fault but because of the weakness of her flock, but this is our human perception. HaShem’s of course may be different, and from what we find in the Scriptures, it does seem to be so. Yet this does not mean He has forsaken her, but rather desires to lift her higher by what we suspect is through humility.

>>>Nor so much that I would believe our Holy Faith is under an Old Testament microscope with ''first father'' applicable in any way to the Pope. >>>

Yeshua forgave Peter as we believe He has forgiven our Church when she came forward to apologize. But this does not nullify the actions taken by some in the flock during that time. Again, it is His words and truth that we must seek, even if it does not comfortably with our own personal hopes and desires.

There are reasons for what HaShem does, and it may to prepare the hearts of His people for the last days. There is much speculation of prophecy being fulfilled in our day, and it is becoming increasingly harder to deny such claims. Perhaps this is why the L-rd is revealing much more, both through actions and His Blessed Mother. She did request that our Church commit Russia to her Sacred Heart, only does any one know if this has happened? If not, this could this be the reason for this falling away, and if so, our precious pope is going to suffer greatly, according to our Lady’s warning. Ultimately though, her Sacred Heart will prevail just as the Church will prevail.

>>>It's not Kosher, C-C. It seems a very disrespectful attitude, and it brings out my Spanish instincts. The Irish say, ''It gets my Irish up,'' --So then, megillah gets my Espanol up. >>>

We do not mean to be disrespectful in any way. But there is nothing wrong with His Church admitting she may have made a few errors. For indeed, until recently the phrase “wicked Jews” was still being used in (we think) Good Friday services during petitions of prayers. This happens to be fact and it is something we cannot hide from, but as a minister once said, “what you uncover, He will cover”. Therefore, as we recognize our errors and seek His forgiveness, it will be wiped away. We believe these undertakings of our Church has indeed helped bring reconciliation among believers in the G-d of Av’raham, Yitzhak and Yaakov and we suspect it could eventually bring that unity that Yeshua desired for us to have.

Shalom, C & C

-- C.Foegen (cfoegen@angelfire.com), August 22, 2003.