Posted on 02/01/2013 7:10:16 AM PST by marshmallow
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Cardinal Roger Mahony, who retired with a tainted career after dodging criminal charges over how he handled pedophile priests, was stripped of duties by his successor as a judge ordered confidential church personnel files released.
The unprecedented move by Archbishop Jose Gomez came less than two weeks after other long-secret priest personnel records showed how Mahony worked with top aides to protect the Roman Catholic church from the engulfing scandal.
One of those aides, Monsignor Thomas Curry stepped down Thursday as auxiliary bishop in the Los Angeles archdiocese's Santa Barbara region. Gomez said Mahony, 76, would no longer have administrative or public duties in the diocese.
"I find these files to be brutal and painful reading," Gomez said in a statement, referring to 12,000 pages of files posted online by the church Thursday night just hours after a judge's order. "The behavior described in these files is terribly sad and evil. There is no excuse, no explaining away what happened to these children."
The fallout was highly unusual and marks a dramatic shift from the days when members of the church hierarchy emerged largely unscathed despite the roles they played in covering up clergy sex abuse, said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.
"It's quite extraordinary. I don't think anything like this has happened before," Reese said. "It's showing that there are consequences now to mismanaging the sex abuse crisis."
Several of the documents released late Thursday echo recurring themes that emerged over the past decade in dioceses nationwide, where church leaders moved problem priests between parishes and didn't call the police.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So now you accept Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God?
Please forgive me for sincerely trying to make a point that did not in the least ridicule or attack the Catholic faith, but only point out the hostility of modern urban culture (Catholicism in America being an urban religion) to private firearms ownership. I of course had no business making this absolutely inoffensive observation to you and deserve whatever smart-aleck "joke" you may care to make in reaction to it.
This will of course stick with me as yet another example of typical behavior of Catholic FReepers, which has absolutely nothing to do with your uncalled-for behavior, but only with my own "bigotry."
Please feel free to engage in further uncalled-for insulting behavior in order to harden my attitude even further, lest I should at any future time be so foolish as to extend an olive branch and make a completely inoffensive observation.
As I have said so often, even if I were still a member of the Catholic Church, the atrocious behavior of Catholic FReepers would have driven me out. I would not have want to be associated with such behavior, but I am only a bigot who was born into the wrong ethno-cultural demographic.
By all means please continue your behavior so that all may see what sweet souls are nurtured by the "one true religion."
Someone has a long history of behaving like the southbound end of a northbound goat and routinely pretends their list of posted preconceptions and/or mistatements of fact are a question, when in reality that's always their opening gambit for a series of obnoxious slanders of Jesus Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Church.
This same someone burbles out some garbage about how this time it was different and that by starting a “question” by saying it was strange to not agree with some or all of their stated preconceptions they were really trying to have an honest discussion.
Should I,
a) worry that the hundredth time I see the same sort of prejudgment pretending to be a question, it isn't just bait
or should I,
b) take their saying I don't have a properly nurtured soul as a major compliment since I know their opinion of a properly nurtured soul is anti-Christ in nature?
I choose (b), what a great compliment. After all, how can someone get upset and insulted when you ask if they believe Jesus Christ is the only begotton Son of God unless they're anti-Christ, right?
Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
Conclusion: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else (even the truth) is irrelevant.
There are people on this forum whose behaviour can be understood by assuming that their beliefs are as outlined above. I cannot read their minds; I do not know what they think, or how they are motivated. BUT ... if I assume that they believe "Rule One", "Rule Two" and "Conclusion" above ... I find their behaviour to be explicable and predictable.
Strawman
Rome: ALL evil in the (whole complete) universe. Rome MUST be destroyed, nothing else matters.
I doubt there is, but if by some chance there is even ONE poster with that attitude, I'm sure those all encompassing "assumptions" will draw him or her out.
It seems more likey that posters with opposing viewpoints are quite a bit more thorough in their debate skills, using truth and light to bring about clarity.
I believe you will find that to be the motivation.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.It’s a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames—“passing the trash” or the “mobile molester.”
There is no organization that I can think of who is not at risk of that sort of abuse or self protection. At least in California they appear to be trying to turn the page and purge themselves of those who in the past were part of the problem. I say good on the Catholic Church or at least those individuals to at least be trying. It will be a tuff road I think.
Hey! What are you doing on this thread making sense like that?
Couldn't find even one huh?
As I understand it, quoting and/or linking to those posts would be a violation of the rules against bringing things from other threads. In addition, due to individually identifying those who made posts elsewhere as being a specific sort of person, would also be "making it personal" with regard to those who made the posts brought here in order to answer the question that was asked.
Is my understanding of forum rules correct in this case?
Perhaps you are referencing where a poster linked 14 threads described as posts where “messages seem twisted on the posted threads?”
I think that is bringing arguments from other threads and that is not allowed and it seems to be inviting a flame war. I don't think anyone bit.
I'm not too much on pushing the abuse button, so I didn't do so on that one.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2984201/posts?page=56#56
I don't know why you pinged me to your queries, but thanks I am aware of the rules.
Those links were posted on this thread. See the link below. I don’t appreciate the untruth told about me. I just looked up the sources of those links.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2984201/posts?page=16#16
Yes they were, but I din't bother clicking on them because it looked like they went to media stories.
When I noticed you posted them, with a comment "from another FR thread" I clicked on a couple of them and realized they were FR threads.
Now I see they were posted as FR threads up in 16 also.
Who'd thunk it?
I don't see the untruth : “messages seem twisted on the posted threads?”
I copied and pasted it from your post.
Perhaps "You are making judgments that are leftist media like, aren’t you?"
I love your clever questions as replies.
What untruth was that? Isn't the sauce for the goose the same sauce for the gander?
That I was the original poster of those threads and they came from another thread when in fact Alex posted them on this thread.
Careful checking would have cleared up the original accusation about transporting links from other threads. I only posted original sources.
I never said you were, nor did I say they came from another thread.
I didn't know where they came from
In fact I never noticed they were FR threads until you mentioned it, after posting the question "messages seem twisted on the posted threads?" which seemed to be a challenge to bring the "twisted" messages to this thread.
Like I said no one bit, so the Religion Moderator was saved at least one ping.
Careful checking would have cleared up the original accusation about transporting links from other threads.
If someone accused you of that, tell them not me.
I'm getting a little tired of your APPARANT misreading my posts to you and thus being APPARANTLY falsely accused.
Oh, really?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2984201/posts?page=70#70
New words for me.
APPARANT????
APPARANTLY????
ApparANTy ant sized.
You don't know that I am the King of Thypos, I use them to draw people out?
Apology accepted.
Oh and you are welcome for my generosity in giving you a valid complaint.
If you read slowly with great comprehension, you will see that I was referring to the LINKS as bringing arguments from other threads, I did NOT say the links came “from another thread”
And especially I did NOT say you brought them from another thread.
This goading statement disguised as a question was the closer, “messages seem twisted on the posted threads?”
I don't like being falsely accused.
Remember, please read sloooowwwwllllyyyyy. Post #70, you have the link.
Oh, so "Couldn't find even one huh? " is really code that means "strawman".
How interesting. What is "I am aware of the rules" code for?
However, if you were to say “I recall your saying something else on an earlier thread” and the poster challenged you “Oh yeah, where?” then you would be obligated to link to the previous thread and I would not pull it.
If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like “Here you say the sky is green. Why?” The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.
If however you are seeking to “impeach the witness” by showing he waffles back and forth THAT is “making it personal” and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
And if you are trying to embarass another Freeper by recalling his inconvenient comments from prior threads, THAT is also "making it personal" and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
A poster may quote himself from a prior thread. And he may link to articles he has previously posted. That is not "making it personal" - he is merely reasserting his own views. He may link to articles posted by others or other posters' remarks which are not part of any dispute, e.g. "You hit the nail on the head when you said..."
If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a "caucus" of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection.
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.