Skip to comments.Catholic Priest Says A Schoolgirl Who Went Missing In 1983 Was Kidnapped For Vatican Sex Parties
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:55:28 PM PDT by marshmallow
click here to read article
The issues here are only pertinant to the general lack of respect that the Vatican tends to have for the rule of law, not to catholics at large.
Kind of like Wilt Chamberlain’s claimes about his sex life, huh?
Sorry I always read the puff light bio on this man. I did download Dave Armstrong’s take but never got to read it yet. I also got a great bio( as put by the praise on the cover) at used bookstore but that is in storage in another state.
Also from what I read they came from all over the world so they were already diagnosed to be possessed. I remember in the books that he did it all day long because of the horrible need of the victims.
Whatever it is worth but wikipedia has this in the numbers.
In October, 2000, he said he had performed over 50,000 exorcisms (which ranged from "a few minutes" to "several hours" in length) meaning he averaged close to ten exorcisms per day during his career up to the year 2000. In March 2010, he claimed that number had increased to 70,000. The math for this claim plays out as such: 70,000 exorcisms/(365days*24yrs) = roughly 8 exorcisms per day on average from 1986-2010, which is a conceivable answer............
Fr. Amorth offers the following guidelines to those exercising the charism of exorcism. Any such person must be highly regarded for his prayer life, faith, acts of charity and judgment. In addition he must rely solely on the Word of God and traditional prayer, be completely detached from monetary concerns, profoundly humble and treasure obscurity. "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give." Matthew 10:8
Thanks for #55
Actually, yes, I've done masters degree work in Wittenberg Germany, so yes, I do know the "real" Martin Luther. No, not an angel, but neither was he the devil that Roman Catholic revisionist history teaches.
Whatever you think of Luther, it is a fact--acknowledged even by the most biased Roman Catholic historians--that the popes of his day were incredibly corrupt, and did indeed engage in all kinds of debauchery.
Virtually ALL Christians of the 16th Century had no concept of religious tolerance. More importantly though, for anyone to be scandalized by Protestant intolerance--given the horrendous Roman Catholic intolerance at the time, is more than a little of a pot calling a kettle black.
Chief among ALL the persecutors of that era--BY FAR--was the Church of Rome, the single most powerful, wealthy, and corrupt, institution of Europe.
Just one incident can put things in perspective:
The Saint Bartholomeuws Day Massacre, of August 24, 1572.
Between 10,000 and 100,000 were murdered by Roman Catholic authorities.
Let me repeat that: AT LEAST 10,000 French protestant civilians...unarmed, men, women and children, WERE SYSTEMATICALLY MURDERED by Roman Catholic authorities.
Pope Gregory XIII was so pleased at what was done, he actually struck a medal to memorialize the event:
So please, do not wail about Protestant intolerance.
In 1565 hundreds of French Protestants were systematically wiped out by Spanish conquistador Menéndez--specifically for refusing to re-convert to Rome--at what is now Fort Matanzas. Menéndez then established St. Augustine.
That Spanish killed French in the New World is not in dispute, but the reasons were commercial and territorial, not theological. In the context of religious, territorial and trade wars raging across Europe those Protestants had invaded Spanish territory and had established an armed fort and were protecting it with a fleet of 11 ships. The presence of a foreign fort and fleet were a direct threat to the Spanish treasure fleets sailing to and from Spain. Name one 16th sovereign of any religion that would not have responded similarly with force.
You should do a little more reading of the actual history before you make outlandish charges like that. Using a 21st century lens to judge the actions of the 16th century is a fools errand. First, the killings were done by mobs of French peasants, not by French authorities. Second, the mobs were motivated by true stories of Huguenot alliances with both the English and Ottoman Turks in support of an attempted coup with an ambition to establish a Protestant government like had just been done in Scotland. The massacres too place very shortly after the end of the 3rd French religious war when there were still Protestant armies camped outside the major French cities. Third, that the Pope would celebrate the suppression of a Protestant rebellion following the atrocities committed against the Church and its clergy in England, Scotland, Ireland and the other strongholds of Protestantism is understandable when the preservation of the faith was in doubt just a few years earlier. It is completely condemnable by today's standards, but understandable in the context of the tumult of the 16th century.