Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway
You don't care about any of the distortions in the article, or the fact that the writer concealed his agenda?

What "agenda"? You assume, because he's gay, that Egerton has an agenda.

There are Catholics on this forum who, like Ratzinger and Groeschel, do everything they can to blame outside forces (the media, permissive society, Vatican II) for the actions of very sinful men. That's their "agenda."

What's important is what is true. And it's true that Fr. Groeschel advised at least one bishop on the disposition of abusive priests.

If these men abused again, why were they turned loose on the faithful a second, or third, time?

16 posted on 03/06/2003 12:03:08 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur
Don't you believe he should have revealed that he belonged to that organization? Doesn't that organization have an agenda? Would anyone accept an article written on the issue by member of church hierarchy, while not revealing that he was?
22 posted on 03/06/2003 12:18:16 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
There are Catholics on this forum who, like Ratzinger and Groeschel, do everything they can to blame outside forces (the media, permissive society, Vatican II) for the actions of very sinful men. That's their "agenda."

If you care about what's true than you'll retract this statement. In the above article Fr. Groeschel does not blame those forces for the actions of the sinful men. He blames them for distorting the facts and using them against the Church. There is a big difference. If you're honest, you'll correct the statement.

24 posted on 03/06/2003 12:22:50 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
What's important is what is true.

If you care about what's true, don't the distortions in this article? Do you really want to find out what really happened with Fr. Groeschel, because you seem like you just want to blame him and not look into it. I guess he's guilty by accusation. On other topics, you would be suspicious of the media, but you can't question anything about Catholics?

Basically do you believe there is any difference etween anti-Catholic and anti-molestation?

25 posted on 03/06/2003 12:28:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
What "agenda"? You assume, because he's gay, that Egerton has an agenda.

This may be the dumbest thing you've ever said. He's not just "gay," he's also the president of a homo-promo organization. If you don't think he's got an agenda, you're either painfully naive or purposely ignoring it because his article furthers your aim of dragging a holy, conservative priest's name through the mud.
55 posted on 03/06/2003 7:36:01 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
sinkspur,Can you sum it up because I am getting mixup up,Father said no and you are saying maybe yes.
67 posted on 03/06/2003 10:08:43 PM PST by fatima (Prayers for all our troops and loved ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

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