From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3731101/

Was Lauryn Hill’s anti-Catholic rant inspired by her controversial "spiritual advisor"? The singer made world-wide headlines after she blasted the church during a concert at the Vatican.

"I’m not here to celebrate, like you, the birth of Christ, but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death in this place," Hill said. "Holy God has witnessed the corruption of your leadership of the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy."

But a source believes that Hill’s comments may have been encouraged - or even scripted - by "Brother Anthony," a man whose teachings have influenced Hill so much that her friends have become concerned.

Hill became close to Brother Anthony three years ago and shortly afterwards, axed her management and others who had helped her become a success. Her next album did not do well. "I had a tape of [Brother Anthony’s] teachings," Hill’s former bandmate, Michael Pras, told Rolling Stone earlier this year. "It was some real cult sh--. I couldn't believe that this dude was really serious."

Hill’s rep didn’t return calls for comment. "Like many people who become involved in cults, Lauryn Hill was at a low point in her life when she hooked up with Brother Anthony and she was very vulnerable," cult watcher Rick Ross tells The Scoop. "The question now is whether her speech at the Vatican her own, or, as many people have suggested, under the undue influence of Brother Anthony."

who is "Brother Anthony" and what are his teachings. I would be interested in hearing it.

why Lauryn why?

Lauryn Hill is patently ignorant on this issue. First, she says . . .

"I’m not here to celebrate, like you, the birth of Christ, but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death in this place,"

If she understood Catholic teaching, she'd know that Catholics believe that Christ only died One Death. He cannot die again.

then she said: "Holy God has witnessed the corruption of your leadership of the exploitation and abuses which are the minimum that can be said for the clergy."

Well, as for God's witness to sin, there's no argument there. But for her to condemn scores of innocent clergy with no connection to abuse who have given their lives to God and his work is, in and of itself, a sin and a slander. So the clergy ain't alone, Lauryn. You just lost one.

MSNBC is sure sounding a lot like their connie competition (Fox News) more and more each day. Lauryn's rant in my opinion was more inspired by the corruption of the church recently and not toward Catholics or Cathclicism like most people keep saying it is.

Just because Lauryn Hill speaks out against the Catholic Church she is part of a cult?

The undesirable, oppressive and murderous history of the Vatican and the Catholic Church is well documented. It is testified to by history. Just because someone choses to speak out on the matter, does not make them a lunatic or a cult member.

An individual is not necessarily brain-washed or party to a mind controlling cult just because they are not part of Christendom or because they chose to criticise it.

The term cult is grossly over-used and over-applied. If Lauryn Hill is involved in a cult or manipulative leader against her own will, then I hope she gets the help she needs. But as yet, I have yet to see any real proof or evidence that she is involved with a cult of any kind.

In fact, this sounds much more like a rumour mongering attempt by the Catholic Church to undermine the credibility of their latest and very public detractor.

I'm sure if Lauryn Hill had spoken out just a few hundred years she would have been deemed a heretic and burned with her Bible by now.

VinnyM27 said:

Well, let me put it to you this way, Vinny. If a family squabbles amongst each other, or behind closed doors, then that's one thing. But when the family invites a guest to their home to celebrate a holiday, and the guest not only decries the family's sins at the dinner table, but also insults the mama, how do you think the rest of the family is going to react?

What Lauryn said. Not only did she decry the corruption when she was expressly invited to celebrate, she questioned the legitimacy of papal authority, slandered the clergy as one corrupt entity, and made misinformed presumptions about Catholicism in general (namely, that Catholics consider the Pope the path to God, which is untrue)

Had Lauryn criticized the Church for its wrongdoing, I would welcome it. That criticism is legitimate. The leader of the American Catholic Church, Archbishop Gregory, has himself called the church "sinful." But when you come into my church as a guest and receive a warm welcome, and use that invitation as an opportunity to grandstand AND make ignorant statements about what my church is about, I have no respect for you. None.

namepeace said:

When she says "...his death in this place" she means his death in the Catholic Church. That the Holy Spirit is no longer there, that Satan ahs corrupted many men supposedly representing the Lord

Janfriend said:

To say that Jesus is dead in the Catholic Church on the basis of the sins of some of its clergy, or even the sins of the Pope, is absolutely, positively absurd. The hundreds of millions of Catholics that form "The Body of Christ" on earth strive to fulfill his work and continue his mission every day, with the strength of the Holy Spirit to guide them and comfort them through tough times. Who are you to say Christ is dead in them? Who are you to say the Holy Spirit has abandoned them? You can't possibly speak for all of them. Nor can you possibly condemn an entire class of clergy -- cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, nuns and deacons -- who have lived their lives in accordance with Christ's teachings and spread the faith to untold numbers of people.

Janfriend, the Catholic Church is not the clergy. The Catholic Church is built on the people who live and profess its faith. We have survived millenia of corrupt and sinful priests (and popes), and we will survive the latest crop.

And Satan corrupts many men and women of many denominations who supposedly represent the Lord. You think that phenomenon is limited to the Catholic Church?

Judge not, janfriend. Lest ye be judged. For you to make such remarks is deeply troubling to me. I thought you'd know better.

Mr7 said:

And we all know your church's house is spotless. Right, Mr7?

But I digress.

In any event, the sins of the Catholic Church throughout history are well known. Catholics are educated on those sins so as to do our best not to repeat them.

Lauryn Hill is free to speak her mind. It's not like her comments about the abuses within the Church and the Church's mishandling of those events were untrue. But when she speaks of the death of God in the Church, and misrepresents the basic tenets of the faith, when she was welcomed openly by the Church in one of its most hallowed halls, she brought shame upon herself as an ignorant, judgmental grandstander. She offended scores of innocent Catholics around the world.

The merits of what she had to say were not motivated by a cult. But the grandiose, inappropriate way in which she did it could have been compelled by Brother Anthony, a person who has been criticized by those closest to Lauryn Hill with no connection to Catholicism as a bizarre cult figure.

Suppose someone were to come into your Kingdom Hall as an honored guest to perform, and instead of celebrating in fellowship, he railed against the sins of the leaders of your Church and denounced the faith itself? How would you feel? I hope you never have to experience that.

It's clear, Mr7, that you know the history of my Church. Too bad you apparently don't know the Church itself. Or the people in it. If you did, you wouldn't be so virulently anti-Catholic and speculating on non-existent Catholic conspiracies. Conversely, I know and love JWs, I call them family, and I respect the faith. I hope you can reach the same point someday.

namepeace said:

First of all, I was just clarifying the comment since so many people seem to misunderstand it. I believe she was talking about the organization itself, not every individual in the organization. Enron was unethical in it's business practices, but not every employee within the company was unethical. Secondly, I don't appreciate being told what I [i[need[/i] to "know better." I'm not a fucking child! I didn't say I agreed with her 100%, but if I did, I shouldn't be told I should "know better" than to agree with her just because I don't agree with you! People should learn not to take things so goddamn personal here! However, you should know better than insult me personally

Janfriend, you and I have a different understanding of what a Church is. You say "Church" and mean organization. I say "Church" and mean not only the organization, but the people within it.

Now let's look at what you said.

Janfriend said:

Now that is a sweeping statement, no? Did you not say that Christ and the Holy Spirit were no longer in the Church? Think about what you said. You have declared Jesus and the Holy Spirit dead within the Church. When you say that to a Catholic, you should understand that you are saying that Jesus and the Holy Spirit no longer live in that person, and the millions of other good Catholics around the world.

So consider what you said in that context. Other than being unjustiably broad on its face, it is deeply insulting to most Catholics.

Now, on to your current post.



Your comment only made it worse. And you were wrong. The Church has sinned, no doubt. That doesn't mean that it has abandoned the Lord, or that the Lord has abandoned it. We have had to atone for many wrongdoings over the centuries. Unfortunately, we will have to atone for more.



Suffice it to say that making sweeping indictments of a business is much different than doing so with a church.



Again, look at what you said. It was patently provocative, and when compared to your otherwise level-headed posts, it was a disappointing statement.



If you had paid the least bit of attention to what I said -- unlike you, I was very specific -- you would find that you, Lauryn and I agree that the certain clergy within the Catholic Church have committed grave sin, and the Church hierarchy has handled it terribly. Face it. You made a misinformed statement which implicated the Church in its entirety, and was overly broad and prejudicial. That was my problem with what Lauryn did. And you co-signed. That is what I think you should have known better about. If you were some ignorant orger, I wouldn't have said that.



Insult you? Please. I simply took you to task about a statement you made that was terribly insulting to me as a Catholic. I didn't call you any names.

ps...off the subject...this thread made me pull out "the miseducation of laurn hill" yesterday and I've been listening to it ever since

thanks

namepeace, let's look at this again.

You said:

I said:

Then,

you said:

Now, did I say that these were my opinions? No. Did I say I agreed with Lauryn? No. Did I say I was co-signing anything? No. Did I say that I believed that Jesus and his Holy Spirit was dead within the Catholic Church? No. I simply gave a different interpretation of that comment. Your intepretation seemed to imply that she meant Jesus died a physical death again as other people have thought also and I was saying she did not mean that. Reread what I said and what you said. You wrong to assume that I was agreeing with Lauryn

Also, I don't see how anybody can feel personally offended if someone criticizes the church they belong to. As an example, if someone is a true Christian, they will not need a church to define who they are as a Christian. They would be a Christian with or without the church. The average member is not part of the decision-making process of the church and/or it's practices. So, if someone attacks particular practices of the church, why would a member take that as a personal attack on them? Again, I am not saying whether that I agree or disagree with the Lauryn situation

A church is: a building for public and especially Christian worship, the clergy or officialdom of a religious body, organization of religious believers, a public divine worship, the clerical profession, an ecclesiastical government

An organization is: the act or process of organizing or of being organized, the condition or manner of being organized, and organized group, an administrative and functional structure (as a business or a political party); also : the personnel of such a structure

A religious organization is the same as any other organization, except it's religious. The fact that it's religious doesn't mean it's better or different. If someone attacked my church, I wouldn't take it as a personal insult. I have nothing to do with the government of the my church just like you have nothing to do with yours. You have no power to decide something for the entire church. So, why be insulted?

I have looked at it again, Janfriend, and I apologize for any confusion that you were co-signed the statement or otherwise intended it as a new statement. I think your post was subject to some misinterpretation, but I will belabor that point no further. I should have indeed looked at it more closely.

Now, as for the rest of your post, which poses an interesting philosophical question.



I agree to a certain extent. As I have said dozens of times on the org, my family consists of Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals, Jews and JWs. So the nature of the Christian faith transcends denominations.

Yet, my home is the Catholic Church. I was raised in Catholic schools and am active in my church still. I have been appointed to positions within the local school system, which is one and the same with the diocese. The congregants make up its body, so that when something happens at the top, it affects everyone at the bottom. Believe me, we feel the criticisms. The church has been legitimately criticized in different circles. But the clergy as a whole have been unfairly portrayed. And anti-Catholics use this episode as another excuse to slander the faith. The clergy are our leaders, and we feel (for the most part) a loyalty to them. And we know all the good the church does for souls and society, and it's frustrating to see the church portrayed as a den of corruption (which it is not). Being a good Catholic not only means voicing one's dissent, but defending it in ways big and small where appropriate.

I think Lauryn's comments embodied all of those elements, so that whatever good she said got lost in her ignorance, and offended Catholics like me.




I think you're wrong. A church is much more than that. A church is only as good as the people that comprise it. You don't go to church to sit in a building. You go to church to receive sacraments and the fellowship of others in communion with God. Again, we simply have different definitions of what a "church" is. A church is a communion of the faithful. Be it 12 cats in a crowded room on a Sunday 2000 years ago or 120,000.00 at the Vatican Square.




In other words, a heirarchy. For centuries, the Catholic Church dominated the governance of the West (not always for good), so it is a prominent model of administration and government.



Well, not really. Being connected by employment or national origin is one thing. Being connected in faith is far different and far more personal an experience.

People can criticize the heirarchy for its failures. People can criticize the guilty clergy for their sins and crimes. Their voices could not be louder than those of enraged Catholics. But when people say Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit is dead in the church, like you said Lauryn said, it is like saying to me that it is dead in the faith. Either way, I KNOW that's wrong. So yes, I do take that personally, and I should.

And, you'd have no reason to know this, but I do hold official (albeit local) positions within my church. I do know the clergy here, and they have worked hard to deal with those instances of abuse that occurred here, and have labored under negative scrutiny over the actions of (literally) a few priests.



Because comments which transcend legitimate criticisms of the heirarchy and question the overall credibility of the Church, and indeed, its standing as a body of people who, at the end of the day, are faithful to God are inappropriate and wrong. Because I know the people in this Church, and I cannot stand people who make unfair comments about the people as a whole. Because it is a matter of conscience for me. Because if I don't stand up when someone misrepresents something about something I believe in, then I really need to check myself.

Be well, and I will work to avoid misunderstanding you in the future.