Posted on 04/05/2010 10:32:57 AM PDT by NYer
You’re a fine Catholoc, terycarl.
Yes. This has been waved around a couple of times as proof of the hierarchy’s complicity in covering up any priestly abuse. The version waved about is a JPG. I am unable to find it in type anywhere in the Google universe, including any print or online magazine - only in a small handful of antiCatholic blogs. Since I cannot verify it anywhere, I am seriously doubting its authenticity.
I found it at a Schizm Catholic website, so basically, it’s the same as any anti-Catholic site.
I’m with you.
I think it’s made up, but even if it isn’t, some sicko guy DID make it up. Not the Vatican.
I notice that you got this piece of garbage from Twitter.
I am not surprised that junk like this is all you have. But I am surprised that anyone would be so bold as to post some obnoxious idiocy like this on a serious FR thread.
That’s from Twitter. Unbelievable.
I, for one, am glad these threads are being posted.
The first articles were troubling and implicated Ratzinger as being sympathetic to the dying “priest” as opposed to being sympathetic to his victims.
As the facts continue to emerge we can see that simply isn’t true.
No one should be afraid of the truth right?
Because you saw it on twitter Judith does not mean it came from there - more likely some one put there after taking from here or finding it on its original site.
And Mark, because it had pretentious language in the title does not mean it is a church document. It was simply the observed modus operandi of similar occurances in 2005.
Would you be surprised if it came from a site that is...
"...committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions."
Cardhu, I got the location of the image you posted from the properties of the image. It was from Twitter. You posted it from Twitter.
And how about naming the “site that is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions.” It is for Catholics to decide if it is a worthy site or not, not for anti-Catholics. Who among Catholics would post that as the “observed modus operandi of similar occurances in 2005”?
Don’t give me the old “Don’t attack the messenger” screed. In this case, the message is so outrageous that the messenders, you and the writer, bear microsopic scrutiny. Neither “messenger” seems to have any validity.
How about a source for that? It appears to be more garbage.
It is written in a manner to imitate Church documents and to encourage people to believe that it is indeed a Church document. It is a false document with intent to mislead.
Would you be surprised if it came from a site that is... "...committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions."
I would be surprised if it came from a Church official site. That, however, seems unlikely to be the case. Do you have a site in mind?
I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.
I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.
Not really unbelieveable. It is a human site for communications. What is communicated is up to the senders.
>>I have no idea of what a Schizm Catholic website is, and my interest drops off from there.<<
Yikes, my ADD is acting up.
Make that Schism.
Put the title of the document into Bing and you will see it.
It’s very Traditional (pre-VII) Catholic and I would rather not link.
Yes, I found that too. I wonder if even the familiar schismatics would claim that bull.
You know, just because Nancy Pelosi claims she is “Catholic” doesn’t mean she is. I think a lot of people want the authority and dignity of the Church to attach to them, so they falsely claim adherence.
This reminds me of some of the other lame anti-Catholic stuff that some FReepers used to post, acting like it was all official.
What is unbelieveable is Cardhu claiming it was not from Twitter, when it clearly was. The original site, where the Twitter link came from, was schismatic, and really really strange. Lots of unattributed, wild, utterly goofy accusations, all under the color of loyalty to the Church. Cartoonish.
Okay. I have visited a number of schism websites and find them universally as distasteful as a walk through the Oneness Pentecostal swamp.
Put the title of the document into Bing and you will see it. It’s very Traditional (pre-VII) Catholic and I would rather not link.
The Cathars could call themselves very Traditional, too. So could the Nestorians and the various subordinationalists. And the only thing that these groups do is to fuel the fire of more virulent antiCatholic groups and give them more false fodder in their fight against the Church.
Cardhu has been less than consistent in his posts. Are you prepared to address this, sir?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.