Posted on 03/27/2010 3:29:23 AM PDT by Gamecock
What must it feel like to have lost 50 years of your life? For that is what 61-year old Arthur Budzinski has endured.
Five long decades of personal pain.
And he has to rely on others to speak of his anguish.
It is made worse by the fact that no-one has been held to account for the sexual abuse he says he suffered as a child while at the Roman Catholic St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin.
Arthur and around 200 other boys are said to have been sexually abused at the school by Father Lawrence Murphy, a Catholic priest.
He says he and others told members of the clergy back then that they were being watched, touched and exploited by Fr Murphy.
No-one listened.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
The Pope was following the confidential orders of the Crimen Sollicitationis to hide the facts, support the priest and deny. The Vatican is still doing that.
You must have missed this explanation of what Crimen Sollicitationis really was meant for in this thread: A Response to Christopher Hitchens' The Great Catholic Coverup (full version with references)
It's a liberal church that loves big govt. 94% of RC's in the legislature voted for nationalized HC. The left will save them for last.
It gets missed on purpose. Some people just don't want facts to get in the way of their Know-Nothing mission of hate.
Maybe so, wmfights. But all the justification the Secularists need is coming out of the Romanist camp. What seems more plausible to me is that the Romanist legislators will comply with the Secularists demands that their institutions be monitored by governmental authorities and in doing so will demand that all other Christian societies be subject to the same tyranny.
Do they have a right to not report crimes to the authorities?
I'm not so sure it's a question of rights as it is the mindset of the particular society. If you or I found out children were being tyrannized in our particular Christian society we would not just simply allow the leadership of that society to quietly sweep it under the rug and allow the abuse to continue. We would fight to dismantle the leadership that allowed the abuse to occur and would fight to make sure the abusers were prosecuted. Romanist eccelesiology hinders individual members from doing that and that general mindset is built into the system.
Free societies are messy and it's an awful slippery slope to try to compel a particular society to change it's mindset.
This sounds great and once the secularists get the power to operate the Romanistic slave labor camps they will begin to detain the progeny of true christian believers like yourself and sacrifice them to the pagan god Moolich whose taste for blood hasn’t been satiated since those nasty Spanish imperialists stopped this trafficing in the 1500’s.
You and your buddies should picket the nearest Romanist camp this weekend. Make sure it is a camp which has fully incorporated Vatican II practices.Ain’t these blogs are great entertainment.
The more that is said and understood, the better.
One has to wonder why homosexuality and pederasty are so pervasive in the RCC and why it is permitted (and thus encouraged) to continue.
"Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding." -- Job 28:22
They have no fear of God and no understanding. It's that simple.
You missed my point. If Romanists are agreed together to sacrifice their children to Moloch then I don't believe the government has much authority to interfere unless someone within the Romanist camp brings charges. What I'm afraid of is that since Romanists are unable to control their own they will allow the government to control it for them and this will lead to the government controlling all private societies.
While the example is extreme it doesn't take too much effort to realize that in less extreme examples the government could claim the right to exercise control under the same principle. For example, does the government have the right to take the children from Klu Klux Klan members because they are teaching their children to hate other races?
Two points:
1) 1996 is when the Vatican tells us it was notified. And we all know how up-front the Vatican is with pesky details and how forthcoming it's been with facts.
2) One of the main reasons for this supposed time lapse is that under threat of excommunication, the victim must wait 10 years after he reaches the age of 18 to even speak about the crime with anyone other than a priest.
That rule in itself is a massively illegal maneuver.
Ratzinger was accused of covering up these crimes, and if he hadn't appealed to President Bush for diplomatic immunity, he'd be behind bars now.
Which is where any of us would be if we threatened someone into silence concerning a crime.
Is it any coincidence the Vatican and La Cosa Nostra are both Italian?
At the very least, the Pope needs to resign and take full responsibility for all the scandals. Then priests need to be allowed to marry. It’ll be easy to get rid of all child molesters hiding behind the robe.
ROTFLOL!!!
John Allan may be flaming, but he sure isn't liberal! He's the CNN correspondent to the Vatican and he wrote a slavishly fawning biography of Ratzinger and another one on Opus Dei.
Your misdirection is a great example of the RCC again re-defining words and ideas and hoping no one will notice.
Certainly sounds like the right and moral course of action.
And you're right. It would be much easier to get rid of child molesters in the RCC if the priestcraft were made up of hetersexual men who did not sanction homosexuality and turn a blind eye toward its corruption, but who instead, like real men, loathed homosexuality and all the heartbreak and destruction it creates.
As the Holy Father said right after becoming the Pope. Pray for me, especially so that I do not run when the wolf is after me.
The Holy Father battles Satan every day. Too bad the media and some in here are playing right into Satan's hands.
Stand strong B16.
Exactly!
And this is why "school vouchers" is such a bad bad bad idea. Under cover of some skewed conservatism, the concept of school vouchers simply means more federal government intrusion into state and community school systems. The RCC is the biggest winner if school vouchers passes. Resist it like the plague.
You wrote:
“John Allan may be flaming, but he sure isn’t liberal! He’s the CNN correspondent to the Vatican and he wrote a slavishly fawning biography of Ratzinger and another one on Opus Dei.”
You’re out of touch to say the least. John Allen’s liberal views are well known. He ONLY routinely works for liberal outlets for instance. Also, about his supposedly “fawning” biography of Ratzinger:
“In 2000, Allen published a biography titled Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith. Several reviewers criticized this book for being biased as it often took an anti-Ratzinger stance. Joseph Komonchak, for example, called his writing “Manichaean journalism.”[3] After some examination, Allen concluded that these criticisms were valid.[4] As a result, in his next biography of the same man, The Rise of Benedict XVI: The Inside Story of How the Pope Was Elected and Where He Will Take the Catholic Church (2005), Allen tried to be fair to all sides and viewpoints. Allen acknowledged that his first book was “unbalanced” because it was his first book, and was written, he says, “before I arrived in Rome and before I really knew a lot about the universal church.” The book “gives prominent voice to criticisms of Ratzinger; it does not give equally prominent voice to how he himself would see some of these issues.”[5]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Allen,_Jr.
Thus, he himself admitts his first book on Ratzinger was biased while he got things balanced for the second time around. I don’t think you have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
And about his book on Opus Dei:
“Allen stated that one of his reasons for writing Opus Dei: An Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church (2005) was that he felt that liberal and conservative Catholics were too often shouting at each other, and he hoped that a book that tried to be fair to all sides would lead to civilized discussion rather than rancor. Allen has been called by John Romanowsky of Godspy as having an objectivity that is “maddening.””
So, the very intent of the book was to dispell myths and to be OBJECTIVE - which means he had to seriously restrain himself from his own tendencies!
“Your misdirection is a great example of the RCC again re-defining words and ideas and hoping no one will notice.”
I did nothing that could even be remotely called misdirection. I was right on the facts - you weren’t. And I frankly don’t care what you “notice” but it would be great if you attempted, ATTEMPTED, to be objective on ANYTHING but your prejudices apparently won’t allow that.
This cannot be said too often. It is 100% correct.
With Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical, there is now a blueprint for world communism. And as we all know, communism isn't really rule by the people; it is rule by a singular, monolithic bureaucracy who enforces its demands by wielding power "with teeth."
This cannot be said too often. It is 100% correct.
With Ratzinger's "global authority" encyclical, there is now a blueprint for world communism. And as we all know, communism isn't really rule by the people; it is rule by a singular, monolithic bureaucracy who enforces its demands by wielding power "with teeth."
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.