Skip to comments.Wisconsin's Catholic child abuse anguish
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Yeesh....here we go again.
Why not just close the thread down as soon as the rabid anti Catholics come on board.
Just a lot of vitriole...over and over and over...
They really are in behaviors JUST like Libs: Screaming, angry, refuse to argue the points, repeat the same sentences over and over.......
BUSH LIED! CATHOLIC CHURCH BAD!
FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH GOOD! HALLIBURTON!
POPE BAD! DICK CHENEY BAD!! HIERARCHY BAD!
thanks all you anti Catholics...you make the Left’s job soooo much easier....
“Sinead OConner..please pick up the courtesy phone...Leftists and Anti Catholic Freepers are on the phone.”
I’ve read Thomas’ autobiography. He was raised Catholic. He even went to a seminary high school with every intention of becoming a priest. He had a bad personal experience with fellow students (the incident was racial) and he become disillusioned with religion generally.
I agree with you. I understand why EVERYONE is disgusted by priestly sexual abuse. They should be disgusted. What I don’t understand is how prejudice can so deeply motivate people as to lie about what Freepers actually believe and post. I demanded evidence from the_conscience. I have no doubt that he will utterly fail to post any evidence to bolster his false accusation against me. It’s a disturbing pattern of behavior: falsely accuse Catholic who are right on the facts of actually excusing the abuse we all decry; post complete fabrications; post distortions, etc.
Your posts are the evidence. What more evidence is needed? To believe these scandals are merely past events is clearly delusional.
Seek and ye shall find but you need to put down your verbal swords and do all in love. You are off the Way.
I didn't realize you got to define what "conservative" means.
Plenty of self-professed conservatives, including conservative Protestants, consider the men I listed to be conservatives.
That you do not demonstrates how far out of the mainstream you are.
And yes, Clarence Thomas is a Catholic.
“Your posts are the evidence. What more evidence is needed? To believe these scandals are merely past events is clearly delusional.”
This is what you accused me of:
“Im not surprised youre comfortable in your deluded state of mind rationalizing away the problem as mere past tense events ignorantly content that the current state of affairs is free from these scandals.”
Thus, you accused me of being: 1) delusional, 2) in my “mind rationalizing away the problem”, and 3) that I am just “rationalizing away the problem as mere past tense”.
Now, where, in what posts, did I show myself to be DELUSIONAL, and where did you step into my MIND, and where did I rationalize away the problem as mere past tense?
I did none of those things. You were clearly posting false accusations. You have failed to prove them and you will continue to fail. Anti-Catholics are routinely dishonest. That is once again being shown in this thread.
Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets often used the verbal sword. I guess you’ll have to explain exactly what Way you mean?
Thank you for bringing this up.
I have observed that for a long time now.
I would imagine that the lurkers have, as well.
But—they were Jesus, the Apostles and Prophets.
We who are Christian (Christ-bearers) were not given the command to bear verbal swords against one another; in fact, we are told that we must account for every word.
Yes, these are false accusations and are also personal.
lol That attitude probably best exemplifies my point. Is there some definition of conservative that I am obligated to conform to? Since I defined how conservative is meant to be defined I would think you would show me how my definition is faulty. I'm fine with being out of the mainstream but that probably just proves I'm conservative.
No more so than I am obligated to conform to yours.
How many people - who identify themselves as conservatives - would say the following people were not conervative:
John Boehner; SCOTUS justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, John Scalia, and Clarence Thomas; Robert George of Princeton; natural-law scholar J Budszizewski.
I think someone might quibble here and there, but to dismiss all of them as being NOT conservative is just bizarre.
The flipside of that is: if they aren’t conservatives, then what are they? The left certainly doesn’t accept any of them.
I think they know quite a bit. Catholics just don’t want to hear it.
Right! It’s just plain bizarre!
They know they were saved through infant baptism, you know...
Catholics hear it no matter what. The difference is we also insist on the facts being posted as well. That’s when the anti-Catholics seem to become unhinged and demand that their fantasies and false accudations against posters are reality.
But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.