Posted on 05/16/2011 10:48:24 AM PDT by bronxville
Rush: "Let's go to waterboard in South Tree Stump, Alabama. Waterboard, welcome to the EIB, you're on the air."
Waterboard: "Hi Rush, Megadittos. I'm delighted to be on. I'm long time listener, full time lurker, first time caller."been posting like a seminar caller to a conservative talk radio program saying the equivalent of "I'm a conservative Republican, but that Reagan was a Nazi and although I didn't vote for him this Obama care thing isn't really that bad."
Well, let’s not make this about him; the problem is, his ideas do not sound like Catholic ideas. And I agree with you, it does sound like the seminar callers to Rush. Almost any true conservative listener can tell a seminar caller, or a “pretend conservative” immediately by their ideas that they bring to the program.
Same with this poster. There are a lot of so-called “former Catholics” on Catholic threads who post exactly like this one, and I doubt a lot of their stated background, as well.
Just my opinion. Christ Jesus, of course, is the Lord, and He knows the truth. As a Catholic, it is not my job to do anything except love and serve Him; sadly, phonies are a dime a dozen on the net.
As do I. It's odd that people will claim to have had a deep, many-years-long, active experience in the Catholic Church, and then go on to paint a picture of it which could have been cadged from Hislop, or Boettner.
There's a way to deal with it though. Simply ask them what their favorite statue was to worship when they were Catholic, or what their understanding of the dogma of the Holy Quartet is (since, Mary, being a goddess and all, must be the Fourth Person of the Godhead).
I encountered some of these folks who claimed a thorough knowledge of the Catechism. Since I knew that James White had written a distortionate "compendium" of it, I simply asked them approximately how many Scriptural citations there were in the Catechism. It's a simple enough calculation, as they're all listed in an appendix. You just count the number of pages, count an approximate number of citations per page, and multiply. Naturally, none of these "pretenders", as you call them, were able to provide an answer anywhere near the true one.
Those are just a few simple tests for figuring out whom you're dealing with. I'm sure you can think of others.
My purpose in posting is not to “out” fake Catholics, it’s to look through rational Catholic viewpoints when discussing any Catholic subject. Sadly, to do that, it’s necessary to identify the phonies.
Non-Catholics have shown, many times, that they are perfectly able to be reasonable and still disagree. No problem there. When someone wants to denigrate the Church, and that is the main purpose of their posts, then assuming an illegitimate Catholic identity becomes a tactic which must be clarified for any true discussion to take place.
From the article:- “The news story by the Associated Press speaks of priests who “rape and molest children,” referring to them as “pedophile priests.” It is factually wrong: few were raped, most were not children, and pedophilia is not the problem.”
You wrote:- “Wow, that is an absolute lie and easily disprovable by the Church’s own reports. This just re-victimizes the children over again to say they were not ‘raped’ by priests. Is the Catholic League now saying that children can chose who they sleep with since its not considered ‘rape’ by them?”
Why did you write as if these ACCUSATIONS were actually real stats?
Why are you so determined not to post the link from #8?
Now, I’m sure you have stats from other denominations, right? Can you link us to them?
Why are you avoiding this post? Why don’t you post the link where you got these FALSE stats you posted in #8? Your contortions to make them fit the PDF review is a nasty bit of work. They were ACCUSATIONS and ALLEGATIONS taken from multiple pages and pasted together to make it look like a actual study using the Bishop Conference Review as your source knowing there’d be no consequences. Who would question your claims? You’re too used to leftist sites who accept anything against truth so long as it fits the narrative. This works on comment sections on all manner of sites, such as, lefties sites like dailykos, Media Matters, etc., or headlined on “The Pope is the anti-Christ and we’re all whores of Babylon” sites, as well as Muslim sites but not here on FR.
Now post the link!
Disclaimer: I already know the sites.
Natural Law - I thought I was talking to a leftie from Media Matters but now know I was talking to a Soros bought and paid “catholic” operative, no difference, the left, seeking truth, bizarrely finds itself in the business of chronic self-deception and reinterpretation of reality to fit their expectations thus satisfied they whore it throughout the net. The Gospel is not a creation of human mind but God’s message concerning the reality of man and the universe. Catholics seek truth with reason and he’s nowhere close.
“WaterBoard, I’m afraid you will need to go to some posters and personally read them report.
But it won’t do any good. Some prefer to defend their church by squeezing their eyes shut and pretending it hasn’t happened. It is hard to read when you eyes are shut.”
I’ve actually read the report, have you? See the above post to WaterBoard or go back and actually read post #8. If you accept it as a real Study then so be it.
Grunthor - ““Victims’ ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.”
Looks like about 3/4 of those are what any non-biased, thinking person would call “children.””
You’re doing a great job peddling your LIES here WaterBoard. Soros must pay well.
“C. The John Jay College Study
As noted above, the bishops, through the Charter, asked the Board to examine the causes and context of the current crisis. The Conference, through the Board, commissioned a research group at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to produce a descriptive study through a comprehensive survey of all dioceses and religious orders in the United States. These surveys requested detailed information about the number of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests, the nature of the alleged abuse, responses of Church leaders to allegations of abuse, and many other areas.7 The applicable time period is 1950 to 2002. Each diocese and religious order also was directed to report the total amount of money it had paid out to victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse during this time period, including money paid for counseling and attorneys’ fees.8
The survey results, some of which are summarized below, are extremely helpful in understanding the causes and context of the current crisis for the Church. By calling for and agreeing to participate in this scientific exercise, the bishops showed real leadership, and the Board urges leaders of other institutions to follow their lead so that our society can gain a better understanding of the nature and extent of child sexual abuse in the United States.9”
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm#johnjay
If you don’t recognize it, my sourcing is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.
To the credit of the USCCB, they have also posted this:
“8. Bishops need to be mutually accountable in their efforts to protect children and must be willing to participate in transparent, independent audits to demonstrate they are keeping the promises we made. What happens in one place happens to us all.
9. Bishops need to resist the defensiveness that institutions often fall back on in crisis moments. Resorting to a conspiratorial interpretation of attacks and adopting a “circle the wagons” approach only prolongs a problem and does nothing to settle it or heal the victims.
10. Self deception is an inherent part of the illness abusers suffer and includes the inclination to diminish the gravity of their behavior and its effects on the individuals abused and on the church at large. Many even manage to convince themselves that they genuinely cared for the children whom they harmed. This makes it almost impossible for them to come to grips with the evil they perpetrated. Claims often made by perpetrators in the past that they were contrite and would stop abusing are never again going to be taken at face value.”
http://www.usccb.org/ocyp/cupich-12things.shtml
You would give a more effective defense of your church if you followed what your church is DOING instead of claiming: “...the data show that “inappropriate touching” has been the most common form of abuse, and that most of the victims were postpubescent males”.
I’m a Baptist, and I have strong doctrinal disagreement with Catholics on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, papal supremacy, etc. None of those doctrinal differences are helped by discussing sexual scandals. I believe that Baptists should be grieved when they read of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and Catholics should be grieved when they read of the same by Baptists. All such behavior shames the name of Jesus Christ to unbelievers, and all such behavior should tear up the insides of anyone who wishes to claim the name of Christian.
But minimizing it is NOT the way to respond. Your own bishops have set a higher standard than that, and I wish those posting on this forum would follow their example. As a Baptist, I take NO JOY OF ANY KIND in reading of a Catholic priest who betrays the trust given him. If that is what it takes to advance the cause of Baptists, I would reject it. My calling as a Christian is to lift up Jesus, not tear down Catholics.
“It doesn’t happen often in Baptist churches, and when it does, it is normally a police matter. You’ve cited roughly 150 cases of baptist - not ministers, just baptists - involved in sexual abuse. With 44,000 congregations in the SBC alone, and probably 80,000 total congregations in the US, and with most having more ‘workers’ than just the pastor, the sample size is equivalent to the 110,000 used in the bishop’s report.”
In the Bishops review they stated them as “Allegations” and Accusations” only etc., see above post, and that’s the point in the dispute with WaterBoard. Your numbers for Baptists only aren’t unrealistic. Also see Study and links provided where Baptists are concerned and trying to do something about it.
“And since no one among baptists has any authority to transfer anyone or to ‘defrock’ anyone, there can be no one turning a blind eye except a local pastor of a congregation.”
That appears to be a big problem per Baptists as outlined in the links provided.
“The idea that a baptist somewhere abusing someone means the Catholic Church has no responsibility is immoral. The outrage wasn’t that a priest somewhere had done something evil, but that the hierarchy knew about it and didn’t take action to prevent it from repeating.”
Can you point to where anyone here stated that a baptist somewhere abusing someone means etc...said that? See the links posted from Baptists who report cases where it they continue to hide it and even worse it continues to happen.
Where did any Catholic say it was? My question is, do we all have to behave (on the FR Religion Forum) as though all the allegations were true, just happened yesterday, have been totally denied, and are unique to the Catholics? Because that's not the case.
“See the links posted from Baptists who report cases where it they continue to hide it and even worse it continues to happen.”
There is NO HIERARCHY in the SBC. EVERYTHING is at the congregational level. The only one who could try to hide anything is the head pastor of a congregation. There is no top-down structure in the SBC. You have as much authority over a local Baptist Church as the President of the SBC has.
“You would give a more effective defense of your church if you followed what your church is DOING instead of claiming: “...the data show that “inappropriate touching” has been the most common form of abuse, and that most of the victims were postpubescent males”.”
Exactly! But this doesn’t address post 8 which is the core of the matter.
“I’m a Baptist, and I have strong doctrinal disagreement with Catholics on issues such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, papal supremacy, etc. None of those doctrinal differences are helped by discussing sexual scandals. I believe that Baptists should be grieved when they read of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and Catholics should be grieved when they read of the same by Baptists. All such behavior shames the name of Jesus Christ to unbelievers, and all such behavior should tear up the insides of anyone who wishes to claim the name of Christian.”
Agree.
“But minimizing it is NOT the way to respond.”
Whose minimizing? You’ve interveneing in something you haven’t fully grasped or refuse to...
“Where did any Catholic say it was?”
” The news story by the Associated Press speaks of priests who “rape and molest children,” referring to them as “pedophile priests.” It is factually wrong: few were raped, most were not children, and pedophilia is not the problem. In fact, the data show that “inappropriate touching” has been the most common form of abuse, and that most of the victims were postpubescent males, meaning that homosexuality was at work.
1 posted on Monday, May 16, 2011 10:48:29 AM by bronxville “
Calling it ‘inappropriate touching’ when the USCCB commissioned study says over 50% involved oral sex or penetration seems like minimizing the problem to me.
“There is NO HIERARCHY in the SBC. EVERYTHING is at the congregational level. The only one who could try to hide anything is the head pastor of a congregation. There is no top-down structure in the SBC. You have as much authority over a local Baptist Church as the President of the SBC has.”
And that’s what the Baptist links outline aka it’s easier to hide the abusers.
Telling the truth is not what I call “minimizing.”
Thank you for your well thought out and charitable post.
From the article:- “The news story by the Associated Press speaks of priests who “rape and molest children,” referring to them as “pedophile priests.” It is factually wrong: few were raped, most were not children, and pedophilia is not the problem.”
You wrote:- “Wow, that is an absolute lie and easily disprovable by the Church’s own reports. This just re-victimizes the children over again to say they were not ‘raped’ by priests. Is the Catholic League now saying that children can chose who they sleep with since its not considered ‘rape’ by them?”
Why did you write as if these ACCUSATIONS were actually real stats?
Why are you so determined not to post the link from #8?
Now, I’m sure you have stats from other denominations, right? Can you link us to them?
Why are you avoiding this post? Why don’t you post the link where you got these FALSE stats you posted in #8? Your contortions to make them fit the PDF review is a nasty bit of work. They were ACCUSATIONS and ALLEGATIONS taken from multiple pages and pasted together to make it look like a actual study using the Bishop Conference Review as your source knowing there’d be no consequences. Who would question your claims? You’re too used to leftist sites who accept anything against truth so long as it fits the narrative. This works on comment sections on all manner of sites, such as, lefties sites like dailykos, Media Matters, etc., or headlined on “The Pope is the anti-Christ and we’re all whores of Babylon” sites, as well as Muslim sites but not here on FR.
Now post the link!
Disclaimer: I already know the sites.
Natural Law - I thought I was talking to a leftie from Media Matters but now know I was talking to a Soros bought and paid “catholic” operative, no difference, the left, seeking truth, bizarrely finds itself in the business of chronic self-deception and reinterpretation of reality to fit their expectations thus satisfied they whore it throughout the net. The Gospel is not a creation of human mind but God’s message concerning the reality of man and the universe. Catholics seek truth with reason and he’s nowhere close.
That’s what I wrote in response to the article - just a couple of posts above you - no need to go to another page.
The PDF was a review and states that the cases were “ACCUSATIONS’ and “ALLEGATIONS” and was NOT a STUDY.
It was posted to WaterBoard and explains why I want a link to his post 8.
One wonders how many other names he is participating under and how many of the other malignantly anti-Catholics are similarly "seminar posters".
“Telling the truth is not what I call “minimizing.””
You hit the nail on the head.
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.