Skip to comments.LA Archbishop Relieves Retired Cardinal of Duties [Mahony, sex abuse fallout]
Posted on 02/01/2013 7:10:16 AM PST by marshmallow
click here to read article
From this morning's "Catholic Caucus" thread "Nothing Equipped Me To Deal With This" After Gomez Rebuke, Mahony Hits Back (Cath Caucus), we have Cardinal Roger Mahony
whining writing that
Nothing in my own background or education equipped me to deal with this grave problemOh, really? There was nothing provided in your education, nothing found in your background that qualified you for second-highest postion in the Roman Catholic Church, nothing that you can think of that equipped you? Nothing at all?
“Whats going on on this thread with the RCs reactions is part of the problem within the Catholic church.
All the hand wringing on how the RCC is being *bashed* and those criticizing the situation have an agenda. Deflection all over the place and downplaying what this thread is all about.
How blinded can someone be to strain at a gnat (alleged Catholic *bashing) and swallow a camel (downplaying the abuse and mismanagement of it)?”
Not downplaying anything at all. Just simply pointing out to the fact that child sex abuse took place not just among those WHO SHOULD NIOT had been RC priests to begin with, but also by others who WERE NEITHER ROMAN CATHOLIC or PRIESTS as well. This is an across-the-board-issue, PERIOD. Those who just focus on one group and one group alone are doing it for the reason of having an “agenda”.
I am NOW done with posting on this thread.
Not just the wrongs of a *few*.
If it were within the laity, it would be different. It’s among the LEADERSHIP.
They are the Catholic church. You can’t have the church without it’s members. The members make up the church.
If they’re not pure, how can the church be?
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindlernot even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. Purge the evil person from among you.
You know, having the *whole* Bible, as the Catholics like to claim they do, does no one any good if you are not going to take its teachings to heart and live them.
Who ever said I am not an equal opportunity critic of any group who mishandles child sex abuse cases?
Show me another group that does that and I’ll condemn them for it, too.
Matter of fact, I was shredded by the Mormon’s in just the same why as I am by Catholics, when I spoke out against that FLDS debacle that happened in Texas some years ago.
...which, I suppose, are demonstrating that Gomez is "making judgments that are leftist media like".
Do not bring disputes from previous threads to current ones.
That's a strange comparison to make when you consider that the US Bishops and US Catholic officialdom are almost 100% opposed to RKBA--not necessarily because of Catholic theology, but because Catholicism in the United States is an urban religion, and urban populations are traditionally hostile to private gun ownership.
So now you accept Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God?
So now you accept Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God?
Please forgive me for sincerely trying to make a point that did not in the least ridicule or attack the Catholic faith, but only point out the hostility of modern urban culture (Catholicism in America being an urban religion) to private firearms ownership. I of course had no business making this absolutely inoffensive observation to you and deserve whatever smart-aleck "joke" you may care to make in reaction to it.
This will of course stick with me as yet another example of typical behavior of Catholic FReepers, which has absolutely nothing to do with your uncalled-for behavior, but only with my own "bigotry."
Please feel free to engage in further uncalled-for insulting behavior in order to harden my attitude even further, lest I should at any future time be so foolish as to extend an olive branch and make a completely inoffensive observation.
As I have said so often, even if I were still a member of the Catholic Church, the atrocious behavior of Catholic FReepers would have driven me out. I would not have want to be associated with such behavior, but I am only a bigot who was born into the wrong ethno-cultural demographic.
By all means please continue your behavior so that all may see what sweet souls are nurtured by the "one true religion."
Someone has a long history of behaving like the southbound end of a northbound goat and routinely pretends their list of posted preconceptions and/or mistatements of fact are a question, when in reality that's always their opening gambit for a series of obnoxious slanders of Jesus Christ, Christianity, and the Catholic Church.
This same someone burbles out some garbage about how this time it was different and that by starting a “question” by saying it was strange to not agree with some or all of their stated preconceptions they were really trying to have an honest discussion.
a) worry that the hundredth time I see the same sort of prejudgment pretending to be a question, it isn't just bait
or should I,
b) take their saying I don't have a properly nurtured soul as a major compliment since I know their opinion of a properly nurtured soul is anti-Christ in nature?
I choose (b), what a great compliment. After all, how can someone get upset and insulted when you ask if they believe Jesus Christ is the only begotton Son of God unless they're anti-Christ, right?
Rule One: "Rome" is the locus of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.
Conclusion: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else (even the truth) is irrelevant.
There are people on this forum whose behaviour can be understood by assuming that their beliefs are as outlined above. I cannot read their minds; I do not know what they think, or how they are motivated. BUT ... if I assume that they believe "Rule One", "Rule Two" and "Conclusion" above ... I find their behaviour to be explicable and predictable.
Rome: ALL evil in the (whole complete) universe. Rome MUST be destroyed, nothing else matters.
I doubt there is, but if by some chance there is even ONE poster with that attitude, I'm sure those all encompassing "assumptions" will draw him or her out.
It seems more likey that posters with opposing viewpoints are quite a bit more thorough in their debate skills, using truth and light to bring about clarity.
I believe you will find that to be the motivation.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.
They might deal with it internally, suspending the person or having the person move on. So their license is never investigated, says Charol Shakeshaft, a leading expert in teacher sex abuse who heads the educational leadership department at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But theres no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore.
School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also dont want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they dont want to face a challenge from a strong union.
There is no organization that I can think of who is not at risk of that sort of abuse or self protection. At least in California they appear to be trying to turn the page and purge themselves of those who in the past were part of the problem. I say good on the Catholic Church or at least those individuals to at least be trying. It will be a tuff road I think.
Hey! What are you doing on this thread making sense like that?
Couldn't find even one huh?
As I understand it, quoting and/or linking to those posts would be a violation of the rules against bringing things from other threads. In addition, due to individually identifying those who made posts elsewhere as being a specific sort of person, would also be "making it personal" with regard to those who made the posts brought here in order to answer the question that was asked.
Is my understanding of forum rules correct in this case?
Perhaps you are referencing where a poster linked 14 threads described as posts where “messages seem twisted on the posted threads?”
I think that is bringing arguments from other threads and that is not allowed and it seems to be inviting a flame war. I don't think anyone bit.
I'm not too much on pushing the abuse button, so I didn't do so on that one.
I don't know why you pinged me to your queries, but thanks I am aware of the rules.
Those links were posted on this thread. See the link below. I don’t appreciate the untruth told about me. I just looked up the sources of those links.
Yes they were, but I din't bother clicking on them because it looked like they went to media stories.
When I noticed you posted them, with a comment "from another FR thread" I clicked on a couple of them and realized they were FR threads.
Now I see they were posted as FR threads up in 16 also.
Who'd thunk it?
I don't see the untruth : messages seem twisted on the posted threads?
I copied and pasted it from your post.
Perhaps "You are making judgments that are leftist media like, arent you?"
I love your clever questions as replies.
What untruth was that? Isn't the sauce for the goose the same sauce for the gander?
That I was the original poster of those threads and they came from another thread when in fact Alex posted them on this thread.
Careful checking would have cleared up the original accusation about transporting links from other threads. I only posted original sources.
I never said you were, nor did I say they came from another thread.
I didn't know where they came from
In fact I never noticed they were FR threads until you mentioned it, after posting the question "messages seem twisted on the posted threads?" which seemed to be a challenge to bring the "twisted" messages to this thread.
Like I said no one bit, so the Religion Moderator was saved at least one ping.
Careful checking would have cleared up the original accusation about transporting links from other threads.
If someone accused you of that, tell them not me.
I'm getting a little tired of your APPARANT misreading my posts to you and thus being APPARANTLY falsely accused.
New words for me.
ApparANTy ant sized.
You don't know that I am the King of Thypos, I use them to draw people out?
Oh and you are welcome for my generosity in giving you a valid complaint.
If you read slowly with great comprehension, you will see that I was referring to the LINKS as bringing arguments from other threads, I did NOT say the links came “from another thread”
And especially I did NOT say you brought them from another thread.
This goading statement disguised as a question was the closer, “messages seem twisted on the posted threads?
I don't like being falsely accused.
Remember, please read sloooowwwwllllyyyyy. Post #70, you have the link.
Oh, so "Couldn't find even one huh? " is really code that means "strawman".
How interesting. What is "I am aware of the rules" code for?
However, if you were to say I recall your saying something else on an earlier thread and the poster challenged you Oh yeah, where? then you would be obligated to link to the previous thread and I would not pull it.
If you want to argue the previous claim, then go back to the earlier thread, ping all the interested parties and say something like Here you say the sky is green. Why? The respondent will be obligated then to explain the green comment in context with that particular thread and parties involved in it.
If however you are seeking to impeach the witness by showing he waffles back and forth THAT is making it personal and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
And if you are trying to embarass another Freeper by recalling his inconvenient comments from prior threads, THAT is also "making it personal" and I will pull it to avoid a flame war.
A poster may quote himself from a prior thread. And he may link to articles he has previously posted. That is not "making it personal" - he is merely reasserting his own views. He may link to articles posted by others or other posters' remarks which are not part of any dispute, e.g. "You hit the nail on the head when you said..."
If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a "caucus" of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection.
Ping to the above post 80
From that thread, respond to the comment containing "Kill all chickens that . . . " in the original thread, including in the list of recipients the person who denies any such comment exists, as well as others actively involved in the thread and series of comments wherein it was said on such statement exists. Right?
However, if another poster directly challenges you: "I've never said to kill brown egg laying chickens" then a direct link to his statement is a reasonable reply.
Strawman comments are frivolous and will be posted to accordingly.
No code silly, you know what was meant by “couldn't find even one huh.”
I knew it couldn't be done, there are no posters fitting your strict description in 63.
See the strawman?
LOL, it's not ME doing any codes.
I state comments clearly, I ain't Quidam.
Maybe the Da Vinci Code thingie causes you to see “code” in a simple statement?
Ping to post 80 for more on herding cats.