Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Per poster’s request



Skip to comments.

Nifonging the Catholic Church
me ^ | April 18, 2010 | vanity

Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,751-2,775 next last
To: Judith Anne

Someone here recently said that the current Pope

1. Has gone after the homosexuals in the ranks and in the leadership.
2. For that he has been attacked by the left and the media for “pedophilia”.

I.E. in trying to address the problem he’s being accused of encouraging or allowing that what he’s trying to stop. I can totally believe the left and the media would do just this.

I have to say, that other than knowing that the left and media are a bunch of slimeballs, I have NO particular knowledge or expertise. So I could have it all wrong. But maybe not.


101 posted on 04/19/2010 1:05:45 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
t’s the issue of child molestation/abuse, not the issue of Catholicism, that gets most of us riled up. That’s my opinion.

Oh, really? How "riled up" are "most of you" about protestant or presbyterian child sexual abuse? You KNOW it takes place as often in other churches. Why do I never see you start one of those threads, and face the problems in your own church?

But I think you are assuming an agenda too intensely.

Yes, how DARE I get upset about insults to my Church? Where do I come off defending my beliefs, my Church's priests, my fellow Catholics?

102 posted on 04/19/2010 1:08:43 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
But now it’s the children that enticed the perverted clerics into sin? I’ve heard pedophiles claim that their victims enticed them but I thought the foolishness of such an arguement would be obvious. Guess not.

Lying about Catholics again? Where did I say it was CHILDREN who enticed the perverted clerics into sin? I didn't. I said it was TEENS in the perverted subculture of homosexuality. If you need help reading, ask a friend, or a member of your family.

103 posted on 04/19/2010 1:12:16 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Judith Anne; Religion Moderator; Admin Moderator
Actually I’ve been on FR for years, just on a different account.

Under what name? Why do you have another account?

104 posted on 04/19/2010 1:12:30 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Be angry if you like. I am just trying to tell you how I see it. I am not angry at you.


105 posted on 04/19/2010 1:12:46 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I got another account because different family were all posting and I wanted my own voice. Nothing nefarious.


106 posted on 04/19/2010 1:13:19 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Judith Anne
I got another account because different family were all posting and I wanted my own voice. Nothing nefarious.

Then you shouldn't mind giving us the name on the other account.

107 posted on 04/19/2010 1:14:36 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Thanks for this.


108 posted on 04/19/2010 1:14:59 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("In Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others." Romans 12:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Well, I do mind, because not all opinions given were necessarily my own. That’s why I made my own.


109 posted on 04/19/2010 1:23:40 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I really wonder why anyone who was not my friend would keep a list of all the threads I’ve started since April 5, 2008. And what does THIS comment mean: “Honestly, who’s claiming to be too good for what?”?

Because I’M not claiming to be too good for anything. I said, “This is Free Republic and we are too good for that.”

I started the Presbyterian Church threads because non-Catholics start Catholic bashing threads all the time. There have been far more Catholic bashing threads in the last 8 weeks than I have EVER started since I began here 10 years ago. And I’m tired of the Catholic bashing threads. Especially during our HOLIEST SEASON.

Since it seems that presbyterians get all wee-wee’d up about threads critical of their church, they MIGHT realize how it feels. Evidently, that connection is over their heads.


110 posted on 04/19/2010 1:26:21 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Judith Anne
Well, I do mind, because not all opinions given were necessarily my own. That’s why I made my own.

So, has this other account been banned?

111 posted on 04/19/2010 1:28:07 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Just yesterday I was reading a thread insulting Martin Luther, a commenter talked about how he ripped six books out of the Bible and tried to take out more, etc.

Who is the current leader of the Lutheran Church? Shall we have a microscopic look at his background? At Lutheran pastors? At Lutheran pastor child molesters? At Lutheran pastor homosexuals? At the Lutheran COVER-UP of this reprehensible abuse? Because YOU KNOW it took place, and yet WHERE IS THE SELF EXAMINATION? Where are the FR articles, so we can see if it's being done right?

112 posted on 04/19/2010 1:29:24 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

You’re welcome. I have a headache. ;-D


113 posted on 04/19/2010 1:31:11 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Who is the current leader of the Lutheran Church? Shall we have a microscopic look at his background? At Lutheran pastors? At Lutheran pastor child molesters? At Lutheran pastor homosexuals? At the Lutheran COVER-UP of this reprehensible abuse? Because YOU KNOW it took place, and yet WHERE IS THE SELF EXAMINATION? Where are the FR articles, so we can see if it's being done right?

Why don't you head up that effort, Judith Anne?

If there's an international coverup with Lutheran clergy being transferred around but not prosecuted on charges of sexual abuse, I will be right there with you denouncing the corruption, rebuking the leadership and demanding that these people be cast out of any position of authority if not the church itself.

Please ping me to the thread when you do so. You have my full support. This sort of behavior has no place in any church calling itself Christian.

114 posted on 04/19/2010 1:34:51 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Admin Moderator
Well, I do mind, because not all opinions given were necessarily my own. That’s why I made my own.

Were those opinions presented as yours? If not, they would have an identifier within the post. I didn't think we were supposed to have a group posting under one name, at least without identifying the other posters as distinct.

115 posted on 04/19/2010 1:36:06 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

No, I’ve never been banned.

I’ve never even been threatened to be banned.

I think you are pretty angry, and at the wrong person. You can look up Lutheran stuff (I am not a Lutheran) or other stuff if you want to.

I remember Ted Haggard being raked over the coals, although not convicted of anything. So he is another example, non-Catholic. I personally find Haggard reprehensible, and am not afraid to say so. I did however appreciate that his church board or whatever their position is removed him from office.

I have mentioned lots of other individuals, who have been very much assumed guilty of bad crimes, and are not Catholic. You seem to want to ignore all those. I don’t know why. You seem to think Roman Catholics are singled out for abuse on FR. I am sure they are indeed singled out sometimes by some, but others are singled out at other times by others. My goodness, check out some of the Mormon/anti-Mormon threads. And no, I’m not a Mormon.

I have no doubt that some people accused of child abuse are innocent, and I believe we all deserve a fair trial by a jury of our peers. But, if the accusation is covered up, so the DA doesn’t get to decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute, there is a problem. I think the cover-up is the main problem in most of the RC church abuse cases.

I also think through adoptions, pro-life work, schools, orphanages, medical clinics, homeless shelters, etc., the RCs have done a lot more good than harm to kids. I commend them for their charity.


116 posted on 04/19/2010 1:37:58 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

It’s not a sinister group. It is my family, which contains some kids. Nothing they posted was bad. You are jumping to conclusions.


117 posted on 04/19/2010 1:38:36 PM PDT by Persevero (Ask yourself: "What does the Left want me to do?" Then go do the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

Here you go, and DON’t tell me child porn is a victimless crime:

http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/st-louis-crime-beat/federal-court/2010/02/former-lutheran-pastor-admits-child-porn/

And here, whatever became of this guy? It’s the Lutheran policy not to comment on cases like this. Why not? What are they hiding?

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090818/articles/908189925?Title=Lutheran-church-assistant-pastor-accused-of-sex-abuse

Want more? There are plenty. I just picked two.


118 posted on 04/19/2010 1:42:57 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I’m jumping to conclusions? You had your kids posting under your name on FR?


119 posted on 04/19/2010 1:43:55 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; Judith Anne
No, I’ve never been banned.

I’ve never even been threatened to be banned.

Then why are you unwilling to say the name?

I think you are pretty angry, and at the wrong person. You can look up Lutheran stuff (I am not a Lutheran) or other stuff if you want to.

What gives you the idea that I am angry at you? And what possibly gives you the idea that I don't like Lutherans?

120 posted on 04/19/2010 1:47:19 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

I don’t think you are wrong. And thanks.


121 posted on 04/19/2010 1:48:48 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
As for the accused priest in the article it was a VICAR FOR PRIESTS and CANON LAWYER THAT SAID “A CREDIBLE ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL ABUSE” had been made against him. TWICE.

You didn't read the article, did you? Yes, two allegations were made, the second one AFTER the massive publicity on the first one. Did you read where the priest did not even KNOW the accuser? Does the priest get an attorney, a trial? Or have you already judged him guilty?

122 posted on 04/19/2010 1:58:45 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

BTW - one more thing.

What about all the sexual abuse that’s going on in the schools? Speaking personally, there’s not a week that goes by where this hasn’t come up on FR.

In these cases the individuals are gone after by the state, but the institutions seems to always get a pass.

Massive double standard, if you ask me.


123 posted on 04/19/2010 2:15:22 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Remember The Rules:

Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the universe.

Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.

Corollary: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.

124 posted on 04/19/2010 2:17:46 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Looks like the situation has been addressed as best our justice system is capable, with your first link:

Andrew Spallek, the former pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Black Jack, pleaded guilty to a federal child pornography possession charge Wednesday and admitted possessing 13 images of children engaged in sex acts.

Spallek, 49, of Florissant, resigned as pastor on Sept. 23, citing “personal reasons.” He was indicted the next day in U.S. District Court in St. Louis on two child porn charges.

He faces roughly three to four years in prison when sentenced in May.

Regarding your second link, the case is more complicated, with an adult male suing a former pastor, who is or was no longer with the church, as well as the church itself and the Synod. A quick Google search gives me no indication as to a verdict, if one has been reached.

I'll look into it further this evening. I will note that the man, Christopher Benson, is no longer a pastor with the Lutheran Church.

As wrong, disgusting and disturbing as these two cases are, there is no indication of any attempt to conceal, there appears to have been no secrecy. That's been the aggravating factor with the abuse cases with priests. It gives the appearance of complicity with the church as a whole.

125 posted on 04/19/2010 2:21:40 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Children, persons under the age of majority. That would include many teens, also known as minors, children.

Oh them wicked homosexual thirteen year olds, worming their way into the Catholic church to entice corrupt priests!!!!

“Remove the wicked from among yourselves”. (1 Cor. 5:13)
See, I read quite well.

But I wonder why you continue to blame the victims. Do you have a father, husband, etc. caught up in the sexual abuse scandal net? Or maybe some male in your life that has “come out” recently?

One wonders because it wasn't homosexual children, teens, minors that enticed corrupt priests.

126 posted on 04/19/2010 2:24:58 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten

In some cases, the “children” are old enough that the age of consent renders the case moot and there is no prosecution. If/when that is ever the case with Catholic priests, the “victims” are still called “children” and prosecution, at least in the press, proceeds apace.


127 posted on 04/19/2010 2:30:09 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Is there such thing as an age of consent? What does it mean to you?

Nope, no father or other male relative or friend caught up in the scandal or ever accused. No male in my life has “come out” recently or even a long time ago.

I am Catholic. I love my Church. I have many memories of priests, nuns, teachers and other Church people who have been wonderful friends and a real blessing in my life and my family’s life.

Is it inconceivable to you that a person would want to defend their Church, and their friends within it from devious, deceitful, malicious malice? That might be understandable if you have no friends.


128 posted on 04/19/2010 2:35:19 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Children, persons under the age of majority. That would include many teens, also known as minors, children.

So, you can talk of a "child" of 17 years of age? Or 17 years, 11 months, and 29 days? Don't be ridiculous.r

Age of consent refers to the age which a person can legally consent to sexual activity. If that age is 15, are we talking about "child" abuse? What about 14?

129 posted on 04/19/2010 2:42:15 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

No - the reason the cases in the schools come to attention are that the offenders are, in fact, being prosecuted. But the point is that there is never any focus on the institution that allowed the abuse to take place when it comes to the schools. I’m all for rooting out any child abuse in all its forms and wherever it takes place. But has anyone stopped to think that the schools as institutions NEVER get called to account for all the cases of abuse that transpire between teachers and students?

I just started thinking about this fairly recently. My guess is that there is a massive institutional issue. A culture and atmosphere needs to be created in the schools where there is a zero-tolerance attitude towards child abuse. First time an inappropriate comment gets made, first time a student “drops by” a teacher’s house, or “gets a lift” from a teacher, all sorts of alarm bells start going off.

But so far the silence has been deafening when it comes to addressing this as an institutional issue in the schools.

Just fine and dandy to take the church to task, however.


130 posted on 04/19/2010 2:44:23 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Dr. Eckleburg; Natural Law
Because I’M not claiming to be too good for anything. I said, “This is Free Republic and we are too good for that.”

Who is this "we" that you speak of? The statement "I'm not claiming to be too good" stands in ironic contrast to the prior statement/claim that "we are too good". Based on those recent Presbyterian-bashing threads, it would seem that somebody must think that FR isn't too good for that sort of thing.

Since it seems that presbyterians get all wee-wee’d up about threads critical of their church

And right there is another thing that I'd like to know - what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?

131 posted on 04/19/2010 2:47:05 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
And right there is another thing that I'd like to know - what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?

Sick question.

132 posted on 04/19/2010 2:50:42 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

“what is it with this recent Catholic preoccupation with male genitalia, anyway?”

Umm...so, for you, urine is “male genetalia?”


133 posted on 04/19/2010 2:52:19 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Here is a case from this year, handled in a manner that is beyond reproach:

California Reverend Removed from Catholic Church for Sexual Misconduct

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

The Modesto Bee reported today that Rev. Leo Suarez, a priest at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church in Modesto, Calif., was removed from his position after it was discovered that he engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor 20 years ago.

The age of the minor at the time of the incident is still unknown, and it is not known whether the victim is a boy or a girl.  Suarez was serving as an associate priest at St. Anthony's in Hughson at the time the misconduct occurred.  He didn't come to Our Lady Fatima until 2009.

The incident was revealed by the Stockton Diocese, however, it is unclear whether the victim reported the abuse to diocese, or the diocese found out about the misconduct another way.

Under the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, Suarez will never be allowed to serve as a priest again.

No lawsuit has been filed against Suarez or the Catholic Church at this time.

If you or a loved one was sexually abused by a member of the Catholic church, an experienced clergy abuse attorney at the Zalkin Law Firm can assist you in taking legal action.  As a victim of sexual abuse, you have the right to be compensated for the damages you have suffered.  To learn more about the services offered at our firm, please do not hesitate to contact the office today to schedule an appointment to discuss your case. 


134 posted on 04/19/2010 2:57:25 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
” Did you read where the priest did not even KNOW the accuser?”

I read where the priest SAID he didn't know the accuser and where the vicar and canon lawyer SAID the accusations were “CREDIBLE”. “Credible” as in believable, plausible, worthy of belief. Twice.

Age of consent and age of majority vary from state to state but majority always means at or above a person is an adult and below is a minor, a child.

‘Does the priest get an attorney, a trial?” Who knows from an incomplete and anonymous letter?

“Or have you already judged him guilty?”
It was the vicar and lawyer who said there was credible accusations against him so at this point the priest has offered no contrary evidence beyond his own word in the letter.

No, I haven't judged him guilty as you seem to have the victims but I sure wouldn't let him near my children(of any age) either!!

135 posted on 04/19/2010 3:16:25 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Here is a case from this year, handled in a manner that is beyond reproach:

A press release from an attorney group that specializes in getting awards for ADULTS claiming they were abused 20 years ago?

You're joking, right?

136 posted on 04/19/2010 3:18:34 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

No, I’m not joking. I didn’t notice the ad at the bottom when I copied the source code.

The guilty party was removed from any position of authority and will never be a priest again.

The church did not become party to his sin. They removed the wicked from among themselves.


137 posted on 04/19/2010 3:25:06 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The victims have a right to legal representation as much as anyone else. And the dioceses certainly have enough lawyers in their employ.

But good for the diocese for removing him as the Bible counsels.

138 posted on 04/19/2010 3:36:01 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
Just yesterday I was reading a thread insulting Martin Luther, a commenter talked about how he ripped six books out of the Bible and tried to take out more, etc.

Maybe you could give us a link so we could read the context.

Secondly, he did take seven (not six) books out of the Bible: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and Esther. Those books were accepted as canonical in both the East and the West, up until the point in time that Fr. Luther relegated them to a status of apocrypha.

Third, he did denigrate several of the books of the NT in his writings.

For example, on the Epistle of James, he did say:

In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles—especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians—and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that it is necessary and good for you to know—even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them. For it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

Preface to the New Testament (1524 ed)

In the introduction to the Epistles of James and Jude, he said (about Jude):

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

In regards to the book of Revelation, Luther said:

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

So what is a person supposed to think about Luther's attitude to much of the Scriptures? I'm not trying to be insulting to you or Lutherans; but those are Luther's own words.

139 posted on 04/19/2010 4:10:45 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

Comment #140 Removed by Moderator

To: Judith Anne
After YEARS of HARD EVIDENCE that those mafiosi in robes and high-hats covered up crimes of the utmost perversion, there can be NO comparison.

It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.

Many of the founders were suspicious of the RCC due to its tendency toward political intrigue and corruption. Defending such corruption doesn't make Catholics look anything but stupid in the eyes of their fellow Americans.

141 posted on 04/19/2010 4:38:05 PM PDT by Clemenza (Remember our Korean War Veterans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"So what is a person supposed to think about Luther's attitude to much of the Scriptures?"

Even more telling is not the books Martin Luther removed but the books he actually authored. (On the Jews and Their Lies, Vom Schem Hamphoras, Warning against the Jews) His extreme antisemitism were the basis for much of the agenda and propaganda of the Nazi Party.

142 posted on 04/19/2010 4:40:45 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
"It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption."

Perhaps you could explain your silence regarding the sexual abuse by the clergy of the protestant denominations, including yours which research shows is 3-10 times greater than that by the Catholic clergy.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on the "suspicion of the Founders". Jefferson despised clergy of all faiths and Adams railed against the Protestant Popes of Mass.

143 posted on 04/19/2010 4:45:30 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Even more telling is not the books Martin Luther removed but the books he actually authored. (On the Jews and Their Lies, Vom Schem Hamphoras, Warning against the Jews) His extreme antisemitism were the basis for much of the agenda and propaganda of the Nazi Party.

But that wasn't the point I was trying to get at. We were accused of insulting him by accusing him of ripping books out of the Bible and the point I was getting at was that those are the facts...using his own words...and even from Protestant-leaning sites.

144 posted on 04/19/2010 4:53:11 PM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
After YEARS of HARD EVIDENCE that those mafiosi in robes and high-hats covered up crimes of the utmost perversion, there can be NO comparison.

Who is posting under this handle? Jesse Ventura, or Bill Maher? Or maybe Chris Hitchens?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2496350/posts

145 posted on 04/19/2010 4:57:06 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

Corrected link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2496350/posts


146 posted on 04/19/2010 4:58:03 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The guilty party was removed from any position of authority and will never be a priest again.

The church did not become party to his sin. They removed the wicked from among themselves.

Where did it say he was convicted in a court of law of a crime? If he wasn't, HE WAS NIFONGED!!

147 posted on 04/19/2010 5:01:39 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
After YEARS of HARD EVIDENCE that those mafiosi in robes and high-hats covered up crimes of the utmost perversion, there can be NO comparison.

It disgusts me how instead of attacking perversion in the Church and the corrupt actions of MORTALS (ie bishops) the kool-aid drinking Catholics continue to defend those who were complicit in the corruption.

[Faithful Departed author Philip] Lawler points out that while less than five percent of American priests have been accused of sexual abuse, some two-thirds of our bishops were apparently complicit in cover-ups. The real scandal isn't the sick excesses of a few dozen pedophiles, or even the hundreds of priests who had affairs with teenage boys -- the bulk of abuse cases. No, according to Lawler, it is the malfeasance of wealthy, powerful, and evidently worldly men who fill the thrones -- but not the shoes -- of the apostles. In case after case, we read in their correspondence, in the records of their soulless, bureaucratic responses to victims of psychic torture and spiritual betrayal, these bishops' prime concern was to save the infrastructure, the bricks and mortar and mortgages. Ironically, their lack of a supernatural concern for souls is precisely what cost them so much money in the end.
-- excerpted from the "Inside Catholic" blog article and 'Catholic Caucus' thread Kneeling Before the World

"The Dublin Archdiocese's preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church and the preservation of its assets," said the report. "All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state"....
-- excerpted from the article and thread Pope calls Irish church leaders to Vatican to discuss abuse report

If the InsideCatholic.com blog can be believed, two-thirds of all American bishops were complicit in covering up the immoral and illegal actions of 4% or fewer Catholic clergymen. All we can say with certainty is that 96+% - 105,302 Catholic clergymen - were never accused, yet 95 percent of all Catholic dioceses in the United States were impacted negatively. The numbers are more damning for the bishops than they are for the priests.
.... Alex Murphy, Sept. 29, 2009

148 posted on 04/19/2010 5:09:08 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Not a caucus thread, and posted in 2008.
149 posted on 04/19/2010 5:22:57 PM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

“Nifonged?” By whom? The Catholic Church? That’s who removed him. It’s the only proper course of action under the circumstance.

What other sort of authority figures do you make such blanket exceptions for, politicians? No, otherwise you wouldn’t be on FR. Law enforcement? No. Corporate CEO’s or even midlevel managers sexually harrassing employees? No.

Why here, then? Get them out of any position to abuse the trust placed in them. Sheltering them and making excuses for them and sending them off to another jurisdiction to avoid the just consequence of their actions taints you and your church.

Why can’t you see that? Evidently at least one diocese in California sees it.


150 posted on 04/19/2010 5:25:27 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 2,751-2,775 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson