Posted on 03/26/2010 5:32:30 PM PDT by Biggirl
Your beliefs are your beliefs, right or wrong.
What do you mean by that?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Words such as "false" "wrong" "accurate" are not "making it personal."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Notice how I got a post from the Mod saying that I was making it personal but this post still exists in the other thread just as I predicted it would: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2481003/posts?page=54#54
Gee, funny how that works isn’t it? Now that a Catholic has pointed that out it might be deleted, however. That’s the usual pattern.
Take your apparent persecution complex up with the RM, vlad.
You wrote:
“Take your apparent persecution complex up with the RM, vlad.”
I don’t believe I am persecuted in the least. I do think, however, that there is a discernable pattern here. I have seen it again and again and even post as I do becasue of it. That’s why I deliberately didn’t say anything to the mod the first time.
Again, take it up with the RM, vlad. You’ve been deliberately pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior on here, for a long time.
It’s become no longer possible to debate matters in a civil manner with you, with all your backhanded, third person slams, as far as I’m concerned.
You wrote:
“Again, take it up with the RM, vlad.”
No. I already said I would not.
“You’ve been deliberately pushing the boundaries of acceptable behavior on here, for a long time.”
I sometimes post as I see others post.
“It’s become no longer possible to debate matters in a civil manner with you, with all your backhanded, third person slams, as far as I’m concerned.”
I doubt that. The simple fact is that I have been right about the facts all along while you have not. When anti-Catholics are shown to be wrong on the facts (or asked questions they are apparently incapable of answering) they claim debate is impossible. In post 73 I asked, “What policy? Again, this abusive priest was put on trial. He was on tril while Ratzinger was working as a cardinal. So, how did he fail in his duty exactly? What policy did he not enforce? Seriously, can you answer ANY of those questions? Even one?”
And you never responded. I have no reason to believe you know any of the facts.
I never responded because I am done with you, vlad. You’re going to have to take it up with the mod; I’ve taken care of that for you.
Have a good day.
You wrote:
“I never responded because I am done with you, vlad.”
Strange. You kept responding but still refused to answer questions even BEFORE that. My, how convenient.
“You’re going to have to take it up with the mod;”
I have nothing to take up with the mod.
“I’ve taken care of that for you.”
Thanks, but again, I have nothing to take up with the mod.
“Have a good day.”
It’s already been a great day and will only get better now.
Well, Christopher Hitchens is on FOXNEWS and just claimed that the pope is PERSONALLY responsible for the rape of children. He bungled the facts of the Murphy case, claimed there was evidence that Benedict was not tougher of the ephebophiles than others, etc.
And, of course, the reporterette did nothing to counter anything he said. She is probably less knowledgeable than he is - and that’s saying something.
God bless Bill Donohue. He just corrected Hitchens’ errors on FOXNEWS. Pity that they could not have been on at the same time.
Here is the paper trail. The evidence is clear that Father Murphy was guilty-even Father Murphy's states it to be so. As the paper trail shows, Archbishop Weakland in the Roman Catholic Church was desperately trying to get this man convicted-not legally because the statues of limitations had exceeded. Rather removed from the priesthood for the betterment of the Church. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was contacted about this matter in July of 1996. Ratzinger chose not to respond (twice). Pleads went out to the Vatican. They were ignored because of the "scandal" and "time lapse"-even though there was no doubt about Father Murphy's guilt. Two years later Father Murphy died. Case close. Father Murphy was given a full funeral accorded one of a priest.
Archbishop Weakland falls into obscurity. Ratzinger is promoted. Sounds typically bureaucratic.
You wrote:
“Here is the paper trail.”
I already posted a full timeline.
“The evidence is clear that Father Murphy was guilty-even Father Murphy’s states it to be so.”
And who said otherwise?
“As the paper trail shows, Archbishop Weakland in the Roman Catholic Church was desperately trying to get this man convicted-not legally because the statues of limitations had exceeded.”
Until Weakland changed his mind. Did you remember that detail? Do you remember why he changed his plan?
“Rather removed from the priesthood for the betterment of the Church.”
He had ceased working as a priest almost 30 years PREVIOUS to his death.
“Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was contacted about this matter in July of 1996.”
Actually, his OFFICE was contacted and that was only two years before the priest’s death.
“Ratzinger chose not to respond (twice). Pleads went out to the Vatican.”
Weakland could have proceeded against Murphy at any time. No answer from the Vatican was necessary. The Bishop had a tribunal. He began a trial when he felt prepared. No permission from the Vatican was necessary. He knew this - that’s why he began the trial ON HIS OWN. Also, you’re posting a terrible falsehood. Anyone who looks into this matter would know the following:
17 July 1996: Archbishop Weakland wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger about the case.
24 March 1997: Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy. (which had already begun).
Thus, there was an 8 month span of time between Weakland’s letter and the response from Ratzinger’s office. Thus, when the MSM says there was no response, that is an outright lie.
“They were ignored because of the “scandal” and “time lapse”-even though there was no doubt about Father Murphy’s guilt.”
How is a response from Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone advising a trial the same thing as being ignored? Can you explain that to me?
“Two years later Father Murphy died. Case close. Father Murphy was given a full funeral accorded one of a priest.”
Against Archbishop Weakland’s request. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481315/posts
“Archbishop Weakland falls into obscurity.”
Actually, no. Weakland is drummed out of the active ministry by his own scandalous behavior coming into public view.
“Ratzinger is promoted.”
No, he wasn’t. He was elected Pope. If anyone “promoted” him, it was God.
“Sounds typically bureaucratic.”
Sounds providential. Not only did he do what he was supposed do according to the policies of the Church, he has been a wonderful pope and I thank God for him!
By the way, canon lawyer priest, Fr. Tom Brundage, whose letter your link opens up to? He said Mass for the repose of my father’s soul when he passed away. Small world.
There isn't a "terrible falsehood". You posted your interpretation. I posted the letters. The letters speak for themselves.
Weakland could have proceeded against Murphy at any time.
As is pointed out in the letters, the deaf community was slow to respond due to the nature of their handicap. Weakland proceeded when he discovered there were problems.
Thus, there was an 8 month span of time between Weakland’s letter and the response from Ratzinger’s office. Thus, when the MSM says there was no response, that is an outright lie.
Excuse me but the LETTERS states that there is no response from Ratzinger's office. Don't blame this one on the MSM.
Actually, no. Weakland is drummed out of the active ministry by his own scandalous behavior coming into public view.
Ooooohhhh...you're right. It seems Archbishop Weakland was involved in a homosexual love affair. If so, then Father Murphy case must have been pretty onerous for him to go to all that work.
That just means the Vatican allowed more and more of this to simply fester. How many more of these people are in the Roman Church? How many more "officials" are going to ignore the issues. It's disgusting but if you wish to use your offering to God to pay off pedophile lawsuits, then that is your prerogative.
No, he wasn’t. He was elected Pope. If anyone “promoted” him, it was God.
God raises up honorable and dishonorable men to accomplish His will. He raised up King Jeroboam just as much as he raised up King David. It doesn't mean anything.
...he has been a wonderful pope and I thank God for him!
He's a socialist from a socialistic country pushing a socialist agenda. If you thank God for that, then you need to sign up to the Daily Kos-not Free Republic. This episode only highlights the Church's protection of pedophile priests and homosexual archbishops at the expense of their victims or scandal.
You wrote:
“There isn’t a “terrible falsehood”. You posted your interpretation. I posted the letters. The letters speak for themselves.”
I posted no interpretation. I posted the necessary portion of the timeline. You did not post all the documents, but only a link to a portion of them. You claimed FALSELY that there was no response from Ratzinger when in fact his office replied and advised a trial.
“As is pointed out in the letters, the deaf community was slow to respond due to the nature of their handicap.”
That had nothing to do with Weakland’s ability to launch a procedure. It only mean the process of the invesitigation and trial would be difficult. If you would think for a minute you might realize that if you’re saying Weakland IN WISCONSIN ITSELF had difficulty mounting a case why do you think it would have been easier for a bunch of Italian speakers in VATICAN CITY?!? Did that thought even occur to you? Apparently not.
“Weakland proceeded when he discovered there were problems.”
Perhaps. Then again he was bishop already for about 15 years and had done little or nothing. The gay loving press has given him a complete pass on that apparently - and so are you.
“Excuse me but the LETTERS states that there is no response from Ratzinger’s office. Don’t blame this one on the MSM.”
When will you realize that there were more documents then what you were led to believe by the gay loving MSM? Do you believe a case with allegations going back to the 1950s that came up in the mid 1970s and then was brought to trial in the 1990s would only amount to 82 pages of documents there, sonny? Also, if the police investigated - and they did and decided not to file charges - where are those documents? Why isn’t the MSM reporting on those?
“Ooooohhhh...you’re right. It seems Archbishop Weakland was involved in a homosexual love affair. If so, then Father Murphy case must have been pretty onerous for him to go to all that work.”
A clerical trial is a huge undertaking that no one likes. Weakland had been bishop since 1977. The court case started in 1995 or so. What did Weakland know in the 1970s that he never told anyone in the Vatican until the 1990s? Seriously, you don’t find it suspicious that there’s a paucity of documents from 1974-1995? Maybe Weakland knew nothing. That could be I suppose.
“That just means the Vatican allowed more and more of this to simply fester.”
Again, why didn’t Weakland inform the Vatican BEFORE 1995? I suppose it’s possible that he didn’t know. Do you believe that? Remember, Weakland was bishop since 1977. 1-9-7-7.
“How many more of these people are in the Roman Church?”
Even one would be too many.
“How many more “officials” are going to ignore the issues.”
Very few.
“It’s disgusting but if you wish to use your offering to God to pay off pedophile lawsuits, then that is your prerogative.”
As far as I know not a single dime of any offering I have ever made has gone to pay off a single ephebophile. That’s one of the accidental blessings of being in a Latin Mass community. Not a single priest from any Catholic school I attended, nor any pastor or assistant pastor of any parish I ever attended was ever accused of molesting a child. One priest who I didn’t know well and who only briefly served at a parish I attended years ago temporarily left the active priesthood in a dispute with his order and ended up fathering a child. He later game back, and was given a new chance by another order. I met him then. He didn’t stay. He left the order and no longer worked for the Church. I have no idea what happened to him after that. That’s it.
“God raises up honorable and dishonorable men to accomplish His will. He raised up King Jeroboam just as much as he raised up King David. It doesn’t mean anything.”
It does when it is so obvious that Benedict is an honorable man that his gay-loving enemies have to lie about him.
“He’s a socialist from a socialistic country pushing a socialist agenda.”
Are you honestly going to hold his place of birth against him? And what kind of control did he have over where he was born? Is it rational for a man’s birthplace to be held against him? Gee, I sure hope you weren’t born on the wrong side of the tracks or anything.
“If you thank God for that, then you need to sign up to the Daily Kos-not Free Republic.”
The pope is no socialist. You’re clear attempt at misdirection simply will not work. Are you desperate? You sure sound like it.
” This episode only highlights the Church’s protection of pedophile priests and homosexual archbishops at the expense of their victims or scandal.”
No, actually it doesn’t. Can you present any evidence that Murphy was protected by the Church? Why did he leave the active priesthood in 1974? Why didn’t the Church “protect him” in 1976 or 1980 or afterward? Gee, there goes your theory all shot to hell. Also, when exactly did the Church “protect” Weakland over his homosexuality? Once it was exposed, he was gone pretty quickly. That’s what this is all about. After his autobiographical admission of his homosexuality last year he has nothing to lose. He is cooperating with the gay-loving MSM to attack Benedict. And you’re falling for it apparently.
All coins lead to Roman.
You wrote:
“All coins lead to Roman.”
Nope. Actually very little money goes to the Vatican and the Vatican doesn’t pay anyone in abuse cases since those happen in diocese elsewhere. I guess you never thought of that either? And the money I give at my parish doesn’t go to the Vatican or the diocese. Again, Latin Mass community.
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.