Vatican laicizes Canadian bishop convicted of importing child porn

May. 16, 2012
Retired Bishop Raymond Lahey of the Diocese of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, arrives at a police station in Ottawa in 2009. (CNS/Reuters/Chris Wattie)

OTTAWA, Ontario -- Raymond Lahey, the retired bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, who was convicted of importing child pornography, has been laicized by the Vatican, said the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

A statement on the CCCB website Wednesday said the conference learned from the Vatican that "Raymond Lahey has been dismissed from the clerical state." As such, he loses all rights and duties associated with being a priest, except the obligation of celibacy, said the bishops' statement.

"Raymond Lahey has accepted the Decree of Dismissal, which also requires him to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in reparation for the harm and the scandal he has caused, and for the sanctification of clergy," the statement said.

The 71-year-old former bishop pleaded guilty in May 2011 to charge of possession of child pornography for importation. He was released from prison Jan. 4 after the judge gave him double credit for eight months already served. The judge also imposed a period of 24 months' probation with strict conditions on him.

Good, but the man needs to be

Good, but the man needs to be in prison. Canada is too easy on this kind of stuff.

He was. Is justice really

He was. Is justice really served by having him rot there? It's always easy to talk tough and appear self righteous. But for the grace of God go you or I.

"There but for the grace of

"There but for the grace of God, go you or I." I don't think so. What he did was a choice, one I would never make and hopefully, either would you. The entire idea of child pornography makes me sick on my stomach, so no "go you or I," anything. Why, if everything clerical has been stripped from him would celibacy remain? He's not a priest or a bishop, so he can do anything he wishes, though with his sick fixation on children, let us pray he does not. I hope he has to wear an tracking device the rest of his life.

I don't think you understand

I don't think you understand "choice" when it comes to the uncontrolled behavior that hurts others' rights, that we have outlawed. Reparation, if it's at all possible, yes, but what about correction? Does punishment correct psychic disorders?

"but for the grace of God go

"but for the grace of God go you or I". I agreed David. I can't imagine a child ever as an object of sexual desire. None-the-less, I have wondered, if I did, how would I handle it, as the burden must be enormous. I can't remember if there were any victims - I hope not. I will keep him in my prayers and I hope you and others will as well.

John David

There's the crux of the

There's the crux of the problem. I think such problems need a far different response than "God's grace." We agree that such behavior is disordered--and I'm not referring to Benedict's claim that homosexuality is an "intrinsic disorder." If that is true, then the majority of the Catholic priesthood is intrinsically disordered.

We must get to the point where we can understand the condition before we can determine what an appropriate reaction should be. Is punishment ever the cure, more than surface, not real? If pedophilia and its related practices are psychic disorders, then even "Christian charity" demands that we confront them from what we understand about the psychology, not orders to refrain from marriage when there appears to be no interest in women anyway, and certainly not by mouthing the Liturgy of the Hours daily. The issue of the chances for cure is still debated. In spite of organizations attempting help and cures, there are experts who claim the propensity is not curable. We have not resolved that dilemma yet.

And the church is not helping at all. Praying the Liturgy of the Hours in reparation, especially for "scandal" to the dishonest church or "for the sanctification of clergy" that obviously needs lots and lots of sanctification, what about attending to the harm caused to the abused? Instead of bishops throwing millions of lay dollars at lawyers and accountants to continue the cover-up and avoid any kind of repair to those offended, what about Christian charity in the form of help for damages done?

What do you mean, "IF there

What do you mean, "IF there were any victims"? Of course there were victims, the children used to produce the sick product that perv Lahey and others like him consume. Producers of kiddie porn are in the business to keep the likes of Lahey happy. Given that one's choice of literature is often an indicator of one's recreational proclivities, I wonder how many children Lahey abused. No wonder he copped a plea; he was probabgly afraid the police would keep digging and find something even worse.

Yes, Rockvilliam, you rightly

Yes, Rockvilliam, you rightly point out that there were, indeed, victims. My thought about victims was too narrow. Thank you for the correction.

John David

No wonder he copped a plea;

No wonder he copped a plea; he was probabgly afraid the police would keep digging and find something even worse.
-----------------------------------------------
"probably"?, "probably"?? Thank God you weren't on the jury or any jury for that matter. Should we conclude you happen to be in possession of evidence the police are unaware of and did not come out in the trial?

Jesus replied, "Whoever

Jesus replied, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. (Mark 9:42)
There but for the grace of civil law goes Raymond Lahey.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, OFS.

Peace and goodness to you,

Peace and goodness to you, Rolando.
before 2002 when the priestly pedophilia story broke in the media, this verse was often interpreted in rcc circles as "whoever scandalizes the simple faithful by putting the church in a bad light, it would be better ...". (the greek verb here translated "causes to sin" is Scandalizo).
For the past several years one has more often seen the new interpretation: to abuse a child sexually.
An interesting case of the sensus fidelium interpreting Scripture according to current situations, which is as it should be since Scripture is the living Word.

Dave, Do you feel that way

Dave,

Do you feel that way for all criminals or only priests and bishops?

Oh please....'you or I' the

Oh please....'you or I' the good Lord willing do not deal with porn.....

Should we pray for him, sure, are we saints, clearly not, but spare me the 'you or I' allusions...they are insulting and hugely inappropriate.

surely the damage our penal

surely the damage our penal system in the u s does to our whole society would lead thoughtful people to wonder about the usefulness of long term incarceration for most crimes.

in general church punishment is intended to be "medicinal ".

the protection of children , the management of seal offenders are issues that are still understudied and so demand on going reflection and serious research .

the only thing that can be somewhat confident of is the need to give strongly negative feedback to those who hold the power but fail to isolate sexual offenders or at least protect as best they can those who are at risk of becoming victims.

the safety of children should be a priority but all classes of victims would be of concern in a healthy society.

Yes, but that's when we have

Yes, but that's when we have to decide what type and length of punishment is sufficient. Is it helpful at all beyond removing the person from the freedom to continue those crimes? Does it "correct" their inclinations toward that behavior?

Lahey did spend time in

Lahey did spend time in prison but I would guess you would want him to be hanged as well.Very Christian of you.You are also behind the times as to what actions the government takes in these cases here in Canada.

Good, but the man needs to be

Good, but the man needs to be in prison. Canada is too easy on this kind of stuff.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The same could be said for many members of hierarchy in that their crimes make watching child porn by the former bishop of Antigonish appear miniscule by comparison. They belong not only in the lay state, but before the World Court for crimes against children.

Wow.. You have just thrown

Wow.. You have just thrown the first stone at your human fellow. It would not be a surprise if your next move, would be to pursue your own canonization (whatever form it takes for you).

i remember the NPR stories on

i remember the NPR stories on ths at that time... the tragic voices of his staff...Other bishops for other reasons shuld be joining him...

And other bishops should be

And other bishops should be joining him because they followed Vatican orders in covering up even worse behavior, the actual sexual molestation of kids and young people. But they're still doing their utmost to continue that, and they are following Vatican orders in everything they do.

Jesuit Fr. Tom Reese recently wrote that if at least 30 U.S. bishops would have come out about the awful sex abuse, it might have made an impression. He even talked about laying down their miters or croziers. But there's the problem, the bishops. They were the ambitious clerics who climbed that hierarchy ladder, and they know darned well that if they don't follow Vatican orders--and this whole thing, just like faith and morals, is directed from the Vatican--they'll be hung out to dry like so many theologians, Charles Curran, Elizabeth Johnson, and other bishops, like William Morris of Toowoomba, Australia.

Why does the "obligation of

Why does the "obligation of celibacy" remain when all else that defined priesthood is taken away? Just curious. Seems like a non sequitur response, especially in a case like this.

In the Latin Rite, an

In the Latin Rite, an ordained bishop can never marry, even if they are laicized.

That's the crux of the Latin

That's the crux of the Latin rite problem! It is madness to deny sex to a sexual being!

Of course, clergy in the Byzantine and Orthodox rites suffer reduced aspects of the same problem. Aspirants must marry before ordination, or they're stuck with unsexed celibacy. And bishops are only chosen from the ranks of unmarried clergy. Those bishops cannot dominate like Roman bishops, but it's still a distortion of reality.

In the Latin Rite, an

In the Latin Rite, an ordained bishop can never marry, even if they are laicized.
---------------------------------------
Totally meaningless at a time when clergy and laity alike are ignoring canon law altogether. The bishop of Antigonish may decide to do so as other bishops in South America have done over the years.

Sir Anthony Kenny, former Jesuit, noted Oxford don and Thomistic scholar, was told he couldn't marry when he was reduced to the lay state. Wisely, he disregarded such nonsense and married. Another case of the whole house of cards crumbling before our eyes as anarchy and misrule prevail.

The Pharisees in Rome proceed to quote the "rulebook" while the Church perishes.

"In the Latin Rite" vis a vis

"In the Latin Rite" vis a vis children's rights. A Christian wright is not concerned with rites. A Christian wright recognizes wrongs and commits to safeguarding, defending and promoting rights, first and foremost of children, women, minorities, the under- and unrepresented, the voiceless. The list can be long, but Jesus just said, "Any of these, the least of mine."
Paz y Bien, Rolando, OFS.

In answer to your question,

In answer to your question, it means absolutely nothing. Given the horrid violations of celibacy that have been exposed to us for years, given the reality that for the hierarchy, from popes on down to bishops around the world, and numerous priests, celibacy means even less, that is as unnatural as it is crazy. Given the sexual nature of human beings--and not just for procreation--celibacy is crazy. And given the fact that Lahey doesn't appear to be a person who would go looking for a woman to marry at age 71, that's only a crazy formality attempted to impress outsiders. It's Benedict's continuing effort to solidify his rigid follow-up to John Paul II's decision to base clerical celibacy on scripture. That's indefensible and really crazy. If priests could marry, the priesthood would be a much less attractive "profession" for gay men. Then distorted religious training and seclusion might not have such a negative effect on those who train for ordination, adding to their sexual immaturity. Of course, as long as theologians like Benedict describe homosexuality as "intrinsically disordered," the priesthood becomes a closet for "intrinsically disordered" priests and bishops where they become really disordered. We've seen more than enough evidence of that.

Like most of his clerical

Like most of his clerical confreres who have run afoul of the law, Raymond Lahey appears to be both perp and victim.

His "perp" has expressed remorse, after being caught. His acceptance of a lifetime of penance and prayer could be a healthy sign if it helps victims heal. (Bernard Law ought to be following in Lahey's footsteps.)

Lahey's "victim" prompts the question: What role did his clerical life and preparation play in his downfall? The answer(s) to that question will no doubt have lots of repercussions for a long time to come, both for clergy and seminarians, as well as for the church at large.

What we've learned to this point doesn't really answer that question. Until our hierarchs take a long, hard and HONEST look at themselves, the question will go unanswered, to the shame and injury of the church/laity.

He may not be a victim of

He may not be a victim of clerical formation. It may be that he is Irish. Have you noticed how it's overwhelmingly the Irish that end up this way. Could it be that Irish mothers are overbearing, and Irish men can control their drinking? Or might it be the horrific Irish cooking that does this to men--you know frustrate one apatite seek satisfaction elsewhere. (if you sensed sarcasm in this post, it's intentional ). Stop with the anti-clerical crap.

Petrus, "What role did his

Petrus,

"What role did his clerical life and preparation play in his downfall? The answer(s) to that question will no doubt have lots of repercussions for a long time to come, both for clergy and seminarians, as well as for the church at large."

You have hit the nail on the head! What the catholic church seems to ask its clergy is to be perfectly asexual. Well, no one is perfect. To ask a man or woman to be asexual is asking for disfunction in the institution. To punish him because of the shame of the scandal is also outrageous. It means that the church fails to stand up to the fact that its policies tend to cause this result. The Bishops decided that they are beyond reproach and criticism inside the Church. Well civil, legal organizations are becoming more and more likely to look into these transgressions. The catholic laity are enablers of this scandal until they take the leadership away from this clerical group who have lost all integrity as a group (so many bishops have lost all personal integrity causing this group who more and more speaks with one voice to show a lack of decency.) The only solution is for the laity to take charge. The council of the laity is now more than ever necessary. Christ was not an authoritarian. This clerical institution was founded on a Roman authoritarian structure. Laity wake up these men do not speak authoritatively. They speak as little heads of a cult under another offender the Papa Razi.

Rome should have done the

Rome should have done the same thing with Bernard Law.

Justice in this life, mercy in the next.

Isn't it obvious that forced

Isn't it obvious that forced celibacy is a very hard burden? So many sexual hang ups could be avoided if the Church accepted sex as a basic, fundamental drive. I am not talking about promiscuity, merely availing themselves of marital companionship.

Magnolia, why not

Magnolia, why not promiscuity? Forced monogamy, it seems, is as unnatural to the male libido as is celibacy. Take the example of John Edwards. The man was trapped. He is in good health, young-ish, full of life. Trapped sexually to an out of shape, sick woman. He did what nature fashioned him to do--sow in greener fields. Forced monogamy is a very heavy burden to place on any man, as is celibacy too much to expect from a cleric. So many sexual hang ups could be avoided if society accepted the male sexual drive for what it IS!! A basic fundamental biological drive.

As a related comment, I am

As a related comment, I am 100% certain that if the RCC included married clergy, with their own families, the pedophilia scandal would never have escalated to the heights (or descended to the depths) that it did. I strongly feel there has been a cultural disconnect between the Bishops and victims, and their families, simply due to the fact that the Bishops have not borne the responsibilities and strong ties to offspring that come with one's own family. There would not have been one offending priest moved nor left free to abuse another child if the Bishops had had any real sense of what parenting is about.

I agree fully. But there

I agree fully. But there will be those who say celibacy wasn't forced, but freely chosen and accepted as a gift. That position is hard to sustain for me, since celibacy is a non-negotiable condition of priesthood, ergo one CAN'T choose to be a priest without accepting it, whether you want it or not, lessening to be sure the meaning of "gift." I have no problem at all with celibacy. There are benefits for those who choose it. But I have many problems with the tragic effects of FORCED celibacy.

I think I'd feel better about

I think I'd feel better about this story if I believed that the Vatican would have laicized even if he had not been tried and convicted under secular law. I think that's been one of the real problems here: Rome has its own system of law (Canon Law), and the ability to enforce that law should they choose. To date, they seem to choose not to enforce far more than they do. The end result is that church leadership comes off as not at ALL concerned about justice, nor even compassion, but only in protecting "their own." And in so doing, a huge gap opens between "their own" and the rest of us.

This is not a tempest in a tea pot: this is the chance for church leadership to show the world what they really believe, and what they really think about gospel values, morality, justice, compassion, and all those things that they tell the laity WE should live by. If they fail this test (and so far they have), I see little reason to believe the church will exist in its present form 20 years from now, because what they will have taught the world, is that all of those teachings mean nothing, if your own butt is on the line. And if that's what the church truly stands for, then what's the point?

Bishop Lahey became the

Bishop Lahey became the sacrificial lamb Rome needed to cover their derriere for the world-wide fallout from not demanding the resignation of criminals in the hierarchy. The bishop has been given a decidedly dirty deal here. All bishops should be looking over the shoulders at this point. Any one of them could be next for the flimsiest of reasons.

Catholic laity need to stand up and DEMAND that no more bishops be imposed anywhere in the Church without thorough background checks at the local level, the approval of the laity, lower clergy, and the suffragan bishops of the diocese's metropolitan province. This reign of papal tyranny must end.

Benedict needs to go and to go now.

Well said, Magnolia Lady. It

Well said, Magnolia Lady. It occurs to me that if they've defrocked him, he can tell them to shove their Liturgy of the Hours in the dark hole that passes for the Vatican's heart.

Bishop Lahey had been praised

Bishop Lahey had been praised far and wide for his handling of the settlement with clergy abuse victims. What a fine bishop, folks said. As soon as he had received all that praise he hightailed it overseas to buy more child pornography, some of which were violent in nature.

No one knew of his proclivities? All those clerics he lived with? With whom did he share his obsession?

This "there but for the grace of God go I," does not apply here. Lahey is a pedophile and for decades was performing religious ritual,like all of his pedophile priest confreres, while supporting the most heinous of cruelties toward the little ones.

Like so many before him, he gets a slap on the wrist. He was never a priest to begin with, so removing him from the clerical state is redundant.

AW

Raymond Lahey looks

Raymond Lahey looks absolutely "creepy". Although he should be in prison, I'm pretty sure his life will be a living hell since he will be shunned by society and have to live with what he did unless he's a psychopath. He doesn't look too remorsefull to me.

How very shallow! Looks! A

How very shallow! Looks! A psychopath because he "looks creepy." And your presumption that his life will be a "living hell" is the epitome of Christian faith, Christian hope, and Christian charity. Isn't it possible to recognize the awful behavior--though there's no evidence that he ever physically harmed a child--and hope that the remnant of his life, like the remnants of the lives of abused children, might be repaired as much as possible? Isn't that the essence of what it really means to be a Christian? Jesus, seeming to know what it was all about, allowed Judas to kiss him in Gethsemane. No one is more contemptuous of the church's response to this abuse of children than I am, but it seems that every problem that confronts us in life must be studied for understanding and to see if anything can be salvaged from the ruins.

What a farce the Vatican's

What a farce the Vatican's part is on all this. Lahey is retired, so what good is laicization? Send him to a monkery, more punishment. Of all the aspects of priestly life, the Vatican sees its mandatory celibacy as the only one worth requiring of Lahey now that he's no longer a priest--except "in aeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisidech," I guess. And whom would he marry, a child?

Prayer is a punishment? Of course, it's always been considered thus, a "penance," for confessed sins to a priest. Did Vatican II release clergy from the obligation of "reading" their "Office," the "Liturgy of the Hours," daily? I cannot understand how the Vatican's hangup about scandal is relieved once all these horses escape the barn. The Vatican should rather have been showing concern about the damage to kids and youth rather than scandal to its royal, absolute monarchy. It still works to hide that, escape that. As for "sanctification of clergy," the best thing Benedict could do for the sexual security of kids and the sanctification of everyone, clergy included, would be to end the denigration of sex and marriage by ending the ridiculous requirement to promise celibacy in order to be ordained a priest.

Let us know how much the church cooperated in reporting Lahey to civil authorities. Perhaps it was more than in the case of Robert Finn, bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, regarding the priest in his diocese who did even worse. That priest created the porn himself. Finn and his lawyers and accountants, paid for with lay people's dollars, are now attacking SNAP, one of the few groups in this country who made any effort from the start of this pedophilia horror to expose the church's guilt and help those who were damaged by the abuse.

It would be helpful if the

It would be helpful if the full story were repeated here. The children in those images were being tortured. We are talking about children, sex slaves, undergoing bloody torture. He was coming back from Indonesia. He wasn't just looking for child porn, that can be had on the net. He was doing what lots of men do who want to go to the beaches of Tailand to find hundreds of boy slaves. Those images were taken of children there. The man should never be let out of prison. Laicization is a joke. The Vatican knows he is a risk and instead of making sure he was dealt with appropriately, they just wanted him off the official lists so the next time he offends, they are clean. Plus, as usual, he could name plenty of other men that frequented those same beaches if they didn't protect him. Wake up, people.

To give the self rightious

To give the self rightious vatican an ecclesiastical headache, I suggest he start ordaning women as priests and consecrate them as bishops.Start a powerful schism.... Will give B16 something to chew on.

The Vatican's idea of

The Vatican's idea of justice: Raymond Lahey gets "reduced to the lay state*" for looking at pornography whereas Bernard Law gets a sinecure for permitting some of "his" priests to molest children and ruin innocent lives.

*NB- How terrible to be made into one of us, the "commoners", who pay their bills!

A bishop is reduced to the

A bishop is reduced to the lay state for watching porn, but a pope goes free when he should be standing before the World Court at The Hague for monstrous cover-ups of crimes against children? Something is very wrong with this picture.

This is just another in a

This is just another in a long list of examples of the stupidity of imposing celibacy as a condition for the priesthood. If a man chooses it voluntarily - that is one thing. But to impose it is totally wrong. The Church's treatment of sexuality is both medieval and unhealthy. Until that changes, you may expect to see a continual stream of bishops and priests "acting out sexually" in inappropriate ways.

Since when is choosing to be

Since when is choosing to be a priest anything other than voluntary? No man is forced to be a priest, ergo, no man is forced to live a celibate life.

Again the victims don't mean

Again the victims don't mean anything and they're not even aware of it these men of God (not).

"which also requires him to pray the Liturgy of the Hours in reparation for the harm and the scandal he has caused, and for the sanctification of clergy".

If one can assume that the 'harm' he has been called to pray for the reparation of, is the harm caused to the reputation of the Church/clergy/princes as we can assume given that it is in company with the word 'scandal' then, once again, the victims have meant nothing: He has not been required to to pray for the victims; the victims' problems are nowhere near as important than the problems of the clerical upper-class, not even enough to rate a mention.

Sickos all of them: Poor deceived and blinded-by-arrogance sickos, those princes of the Church from the Vatican Castle that are supposedly dealing with the likes of him.

Ah yes, blame celibacy or the

Ah yes, blame celibacy or the church for an individual's free choice. Never the individual. Never his free choice.

Unless the individual is someone we like - and then suddenly it's the institution or "situation" that "made him do it".

No hue and cry to get rid of White House Interns after Bill Clinton took advantage of one. No hue and cry to sue the public school system into the ground despite DAILY reports of teachers raping their under-age students (as sex below majority is statutory rape). No way, the "system" is too important! Why, surely we can't dismantle the wonderful public school system just because 10% of the teachers are monsters.... but let 1% of the Catholic clergy be monsters and.... the hue and cry is for blood and total dismantling of the "whole affair".

Double standard much people?

Dear Jesus! Wrong action by

Dear Jesus!

Wrong action by the Church... a known sex offender should not be laicized... and therefore put out to pasture to continue offending God and 'you, my brothers and sisters' among the general public. There should be a place on earth for the offending servants of God to spend the remainder of life on earth within the confines of a Monastery in a remote/desert location which observes silence and a strict prayer schedule... if such an institution does not exist it should be established by the Vatican... post haste... the abbot should be a psychiatrist.

Vivian A. Wasson, M.S., LSIT
GIS Scientist
v.wasson@sbcglobal.net
Springfield, Missouri

Dear Jesus! Wrong action by

Dear Jesus!

Wrong action by the Church... a known sex offender should not be laicized... and therefore put out to pasture to continue offending God and 'you, my brothers and sisters' among the general public. There should be a place on earth for the offending servants of God to spend the remainder of life on earth within the confines of a Monastery in a remote/desert location which observes silence and a strict prayer schedule... if such an institution does not exist it should be established by the Vatican... post haste... the abbot should be a psychiatrist.

Vivian A. Wasson, M.S., LSIT
GIS Scientist
v.wasson@sbcglobal.net
Springfield, Missouri

No matter how heinous or

No matter how heinous or abhorrent the crime, we know by faith that no one is outside the scope of God's mercy. As people of the gospel, it is only right that we look now upon this man not with judgment and vitriole, but with compassion and prayer.

On this day, at 12:25 est,

On this day, at 12:25 est, all four of the lead articles on NCR on-line, Home Page ("Sliders"), had to do in some way with the pelvic issues: the bishops being peeved with Georgetown for inviting K. Sebelius, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services of the United States, the bishops being peeved with B. Obama, the President of the United States, the Canadian bishop who possessed child pornography, and the Legion of Christ priest who revealed his secret love affair and child.
I don't blame NCR for over-reporting these kinds of stories: this is the image that the higher clergy project of themselves.

“God lives on his holy

“God lives on his holy mountain; and we speak to you from the mountain (Cardinal Collins of Toronto in his homily, as his gesture sweeps the area of the sanctuary; and you (gesturing to us in the pews) live in the valley”.
How do we discern when a bishop as acting as God’s appointed spokes-person, or just as a human being subject to error – and even sin? Does a bishop’s voice change? Does he change his letterhead?
When bishops set out to deceive – and using mental reservation to tell the truth, but in a manner that deceives, is still deceit – he does so with the authority of his position.
Raymond Lahey may be a predator AND a victim – a victim of his own folly and sinfulness. One does not lessen or excuse the other, but rather, it compounds the tragic situation.
I cannot bring myself to hate Raymond Lahey. And what will punishment achieve?
The greater fault lies with the “friends” and colleagues of Lahey who knew (or should have known) of his weakness. Yes! save HIM from his own folly; AND save US from his folly.
To draw a parallel: If a family member is a known alcoholic, would we not ensure that he does not drink, and certainly not permit him to drive drunk?
The aloofness and disconnect of the priggish princes of the church is the greatest evil that inflicts the church today.

Post new comment

NCR Comment code:

  1. Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Use appropriate language. Avoid vulgarities and slurs.
  3. Keep to the point. Deliberate digressions don't aid the discussion.

For more detailed guidelines, visit our User Guidelines page.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
(if you have one; if not, leave this blank)
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <font> <swf> <swf list>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may use <swf file="song.mp3"> to display Flash files inline

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This is to prove you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.