Re: Still More Catholic Schools Closing........

[Mike Painter]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>
>> >> >> The diocese I'm talking about is about 100 square miles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >� not the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
>> >>
>> >> The Diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.
>> >
>> >� hopeless hubris.
>>
>> And to think you just admitted I was right. Strange.
>>
>� Quite. The city of Los Angeles alone covers 4850 squaare miles and it
>has 17,800,000 people. . Is Duke losing it?
Which is about half what the diocese covers.
"The Archdiocese of Los Angeles comprises three counties in the
southern part of the State of California: Los Angeles, Ventura and
Santa Barbara Counties. The area extends from the northern county line
of Santa Barbara County, near the city of Santa Maria, to the southern
county line of Los Angeles County.
It covers 8,762 square miles (22,430 square kilometers) of territory."
http://www.la-archdiocese.org/Pages/AboutADLA.aspx
Of course you must measure what the diocese says and balance that
against what god told Earl.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <95jvr8hvt003uffq3...@4ax.com>, Johnny Football
<johnny_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:06:15 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <k7tur89cqv3kjsqmn...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:17:42 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <hq0ur85sdv6fa9bli...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:19:47 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >In article <7fbrr8tkb4nqspeak...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:15:16 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >In article <5jmor8l7rh0aqg54p...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:57:29 -0700, r...@somis.org
(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >In article <raenr8tbcres4vruk...@4ax.com>,
> >> >> >> >> >dreamer...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:04:32 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <0j5nr8ler6dh58afl...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:26:17 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article
<9qcmr8ls9brvdn17e...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:28:43 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >> >> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article
> ><hurjr8p4l52dc25q3...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:54:20 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >> >> >> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article
> >> ><s3ejr8pfc2cf2fvhi...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:41:31 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >> >> >> >> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article
> >> >> ><f0ner8trk9lkdr1ah...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:04:40 -0700, r...@somis.org
> >> >> >> >> >> >(•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• Acoording to RCC teaching, kiddie
diddlers
> >> >> >get a free
> >> >> >> >> >> >pass to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >RC heaven
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >if they repent profusely.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Can you imagine what it would be like
to have no
> >> >> >chance
> >> >> >> >> >> >at all to
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >repent and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> change?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• You don't have to imagine anything Duke.
> >One sin
> >> >> >> >against
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >the Holy
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Spirit and not even Pope Benny can save us from
> >> >eternal
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >punishment in
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Hell.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sorry. That's exactly why Jesus gave us the
> >> >> >confessional to
> >> >> >> >> >> >repent,
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >confess and
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ask for forgiveness and absolution. John
20:22-23.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• So the NT is for damn sure wrong about sins
> >> >against the
> >> >> >> >> >> >Holy Spirit
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >being unforgiveable?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> In the next life.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Thanks be to Jesus for giving us this
> >> >> >opportunity. As a
> >> >> >> >> >> >biblical
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> expert on Catholic Answers once stated, he
> >> >> >> >"suspects" that
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >very, very
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>few people will be saved. And all
because they
> >> >> >refused to
> >> >> >> >> >> >listen
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to Jesus
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > • Jesus said his dad does not want
> >sacrifice. The
> >> >> >> >> >RCC did not
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >listen.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The laugher is that only the Jews listened and
> >> >got out
> >> >> >> >> >of the BBQ
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >biz.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And he also gave us the confessional.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• There were no Confessionals until the
13th Century
> >> >> >> >but there's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >a good
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >chance you've probably forgotten about them
by now.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Confession of actions against the teachings of
> >God were
> >> >> >> >in vogue
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >centuries
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> before Jesus came to give us the new way.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• New way? The old way was sacrifice based,
the RCC's
> >> >> >version
> >> >> >> >> >> >of the new
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >way is still sacrifice based.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. What was sacrificed the first time and how often?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. What was sacrificed the new way and how often?.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>and make use of
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> such a simple and easy, and enjoyable,
> >desire to be
> >> >> >> >> >reconciled
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >to God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Satan just loves people that don't love God.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• How could that be if the RC Jesus/God
made him?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> When you turn against God, you're booked to go.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• When you believe everything priests tell
> >you, you are
> >> >> >> >> >hooked.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I hope so.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• Did you believe in Limbo ?
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Doesn't matter. Nobody knows if it is true.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I once spoke to a priest in Ojai, CA to try to
> >find out
> >> >> >> >why the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >RCC moved
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >priests around so often and he dodged , like
you do.
> >> >> >> >After the
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Fr. Gauthe
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >trial in Louisana I understood why.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Then you didn't talk to a Catholic priest.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• His name was Fr. Bevelaqua and I heard he was
> >promoted.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That may have been his name, but if he didn't
> >> >understand moving
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >priests, he's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not a Catholic priest.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• He understood and explained ordinary movements but
> >that did
> >> >> >> >> >not explain
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >sudden movements.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The LA Diocese averages 10 miles x 10 miles. Hard
to hide.
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >> >• I live c. 45 miles West of LA and we are still in the
> >> >> >Archdiocese of
> >> >> >> >> >> >LA.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> Cool. Maybe it's 2 x 50.
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >• Maybe you should remain silent until you find out the
> >truth about
> >> >> >> >> >things ?.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Pigs might fly.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >• Forrest Gump was right.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Forest understood what a diocese is.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >• He knew BS when he smelled it.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> He also knew what 100 square miles means.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >• The LA archdiocese covers thousands of square miles. Think
you that
> >> >> >because you are following an infallible pope you are infallible in your
> >> >> >utterances?

> >> >>
> >> >> The Diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.
> >> >>

> >> >• Puck was right.
> >>
> >> I know. I always was. Thanks.
> >>
> >• "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- Puck.
> >--From A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 3, scene 2) by Wm. Shakespeare
>
> Anyone who goes running to the KKKathlick church is certainly a fool.

• Those who are born into RCism don't stand much of a chance of escaping
-- whether they be foolish or not.

[duke]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:58:18 -0700, Johnny Football <johnny_...@yahoo.com>

Why? Anyone who doesn't is certifiably nuts. How's that for a counter.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************

[duke]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>In article <39tur8lq6hg6dh68h...@4ax.com>, duke
><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:19:12 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ur0ur8d8lo9gistom...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:29:48 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <sgbrr8luo51llo4v0...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:12:50 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >In article <4gmor8h46a0gc5sjb...@4ax.com>, duke

>> >> >> >> That's where I got you. You just don't see it yet.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >• what I see is a hubristic guy who does not want to know that the
>> >> >> >Archdiocese of LA is the largest.

>> >> >>
>> >> >> The diocese I'm talking about is about 100 square miles.
>> >> >>
>> >> >• not the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
>> >>

>> >> The Diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.
>> >

>> >• hopeless hubris.

>>
>> And to think you just admitted I was right. Strange.
>>
>• Quite. The city of Los Angeles alone covers 4850 squaare miles and it
>has 17,800,000 people. . Is Duke losing it?

The diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles. Population unknown.

[duke]

Nope, the diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <rf21s89nfuu7h5sct...@4ax.com>, duke

• I am talking about an Archdiocese.

[Johnny Football]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:09:01 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>> Anyone who goes running to the KKKathlick church is certainly a fool.
>
>� Those who are born into RCism don't stand much of a chance of escaping
>-- whether they be foolish or not.

they can once they reach legal age. I have a guy in my office who
did. Parents haven't spoken to him right up to the day they died. He
got over it and now he's happy as an Episcopalian

[Johnny Football]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:25:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>� "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" -- Puck.

>>>--From A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act 3, scene 2) by Wm. Shakespeare
>>
>>Anyone who goes running to the KKKathlick church is certainly a fool
>
>Why? Anyone who doesn't is certifiably nuts. How's that for a counter.

Most unimpressive.

[Johnny Football]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:08:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>> And to think you just admitted I was right. Strange.
>
>>� Quite. The city of Los Angeles alone covers 4850 squaare miles and it
>>has 17,800,000 people. . Is Duke losing it?
>
>Nope, the diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.

That's good info. I was afraid all of Los Angeles was infected.

[Mitchell Holman]

Johnny Football <johnny_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:l812s8t81uuk60mc5...@4ax.com:

Left one cult to join another.

Not much progress there............

[•RLMeasures]

In article <l812s8t81uuk60mc5...@4ax.com>, Johnny Football

<johnny_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:09:01 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> Anyone who goes running to the KKKathlick church is certainly a fool.
> >
> >• Those who are born into RCism don't stand much of a chance of escaping
> >-- whether they be foolish or not.
>
> they can once they reach legal age.

• Surely but the RCC's inculcation system is masterful.

I have a guy in my office who
> did. Parents haven't spoken to him right up to the day they died. He
> got over it and now he's happy as an Episcopalian

• Karina, my first mail order helper girl was Confirmed RC but she found
a nice, single, Jewish doctor, coverted to Reformed Judaism, and
everything seems to have worked out. She hated the RCC's mandatory
attendance dead or alive thing. Unfortunately she, her children, and her
Jew husband will burn forever in RC Hell because they did not join the
RCC.

Forrest Gump was right.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <sc12s89c72pbhs20p...@4ax.com>, Johnny Football

• It's still infected but there is no place on Earth like it - especially
"The Valley" and its wild and crazy Valley Girls. . .

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:12:27 -0700, Johnny Football <johnny_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

It tells you that anyone as unlearned about the RCC as you are should stay clear
of the subject.

[duke]

I know you are. And I have all along been talking about the diocese, which is
the geographical limits of the authority of the bishop to move his associates
and pastors.

I've waited a long time for you to catch on.

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:13:20 -0700, Johnny Football <johnny_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Child at play.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <2663s8p70mfoec12r...@4ax.com>, duke

• There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul R. Shanley
was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from justice.

[harry k]

On Jun 18, 8:16 pm, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> In article <sc12s89c72pbhs20pmj6k85o88n1m31...@4ax.com>, Johnny Football
>
> <johnny_footb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:08:22 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > >On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> > >>> And to think you just admitted I was right.  Strange.
>
> > >>•  Quite.  The city of Los Angeles alone covers 4850 squaare miles and it
> > >>has 17,800,000 people.  .  Is Duke losing it?
>
> > >Nope, the diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.
>
> > That's good info.  I was afraid all of Los Angeles was infected.
>
> •  It's still infected but there is no place on Earth like it - especially
> "The Valley" and its wild and crazy Valley Girls.  .  .

Many of them Catholic.

[duke]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:11:51 -0700, Johnny Football <johnny_...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Haahaaahaa. I wonder why an Episcopalian married priest is admitted to the RCC
with minimal cross training? ETexas redneck puts his foot in his mouth.

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<447e75b8-d9a9-49c5...@4g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>, harry k
<tur...@q.com> wrote:

> On Jun 18, 8:16=A0pm, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wrote:
> > In article <sc12s89c72pbhs20pmj6k85o88n1m31...@4ax.com>, Johnny Football
> >
> > <johnny_footb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:08:22 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >

> > > >On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:14:04 -0700, r...@somis.org (=95RLMeasures) wro=
> te:
> >
> > > >>> And to think you just admitted I was right. =A0Strange.
> >
> > > >>=95 =A0Quite. =A0The city of Los Angeles alone covers 4850 squaare mi=
> les and it
> > > >>has 17,800,000 people. =A0. =A0Is Duke losing it?

> >
> > > >Nope, the diocese of Los Angeles is 98 square miles.
> >

> > > That's good info. =A0I was afraid all of Los Angeles was infected.
> >
> > =95 =A0It's still infected but there is no place on Earth like it - espec=
> ially
> > "The Valley" and its wild and crazy Valley Girls. =A0. =A0.
>
> Many of them Catholic.

*** more than in many Catholic countries.

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:56:41 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:

>
>> I know you are. And I have all along been talking about the diocese, which is
>> the geographical limits of the authority of the bishop to move his associates
>> and pastors.
>>
>> I've waited a long time for you to catch on.
>>
>� There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul R. Shanley
>was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from justice.

If Earl's statement was true then it might imply that the conspiracy
to hide pedophiles was not limited to just a few local areas but was
at least nationwide and probably worldwide.

Which is what the evidence shows.

[duke]

Support "to try to save him from justice".

[•RLMeasures]

In article <eqs5s85e06hjjsf10...@4ax.com>, duke

• Correct Duke. They tried like hell but the jury did not buy the excuse
that Fr. Shanley was unfairly seduced by a cute 6-yr old boy. [sic]

[duke]

On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:20:16 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:

>> >• There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul R. Shanley
>> >was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from justice.

>> Support "to try to save him from justice".

>• Correct Duke. They tried like hell but the jury did not buy the excuse
>that Fr. Shanley was unfairly seduced by a cute 6-yr old boy. [sic]

NO, I want you to support saving him from justice.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <9809s85v1u0om8aln...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:20:16 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >> >• There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul R. Shanley
> >> >was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from justice.
>
> >> Support "to try to save him from justice".
>
> >• Correct Duke. They tried like hell but the jury did not buy the excuse
> >that Fr. Shanley was unfairly seduced by a cute 6-yr old boy. [sic]
>
> NO, I want you to support saving him from justice.
>

• Support the co-founder of NAMBLA.?, YOU GOTS TO BE KIDDING DUKE.

[duke]

Where's your support for anyone trying to save him from justice?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <kp8bs8ph9ok5m82iq...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:19:15 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <9809s85v1u0om8aln...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:20:16 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >• There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul
R. Shanley
> >> >> >was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from justice.
> >>
> >> >> Support "to try to save him from justice".
> >>
> >> >• Correct Duke. They tried like hell but the jury did not buy the excuse
> >> >that Fr. Shanley was unfairly seduced by a cute 6-yr old boy. [sic]
> >>
> >> NO, I want you to support saving him from justice.
> >>
> >• Support the co-founder of NAMBLA.?, YOU GOTS TO BE KIDDING DUKE.
>
> Where's your support for anyone trying to save him from justice?
>

• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.

[duke]

Neither do I. Neither does the RCC. You see, we should all be getting alone
together.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:07:12 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <kp8bs8ph9ok5m82iq...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:19:15 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <9809s85v1u0om8aln...@4ax.com>, duke
> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:20:16 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >• There is nothing to catch on to because I know that Fr. Paul
> >R. Shanley
> >> >> >> >was moved from coast to coast Twice to try and save him from
justice.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Support "to try to save him from justice".
> >> >>
> >> >> >• Correct Duke. They tried like hell but the jury did not buy
the excuse
> >> >> >that Fr. Shanley was unfairly seduced by a cute 6-yr old boy. [sic]
> >> >>
> >> >> NO, I want you to support saving him from justice.
> >> >>
> >> >• Support the co-founder of NAMBLA.?, YOU GOTS TO BE KIDDING DUKE.
> >>
> >> Where's your support for anyone trying to save him from justice?
> >>
> >• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
>
> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.

• When did they stop?

>You see, we should all be getting alone
> together.
>

• sorry, I like to bed with females. "J" might be interested.

[duke]

Never of us ever supported it.

>>You see, we should all be getting alone
>> together.
>• sorry, I like to bed with females.

God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.

> "J" might be interested.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:12:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:47:02 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> >• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
>>> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.
>>• When did they stop?
>
>Never of us ever supported it.
>
>>>You see, we should all be getting alone
>>> together.
>>• sorry, I like to bed with females.
>
>God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.
>

Your insane level of hypocrisy is noted, troglodyte.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <8t9hs81ijr5j15jun...@4ax.com>, duke

<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:47:02 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
> >In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> >• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
> >> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.
> >• When did they stop?
>
> Never of us ever supported it.
>
> >>You see, we should all be getting alone
> >> together.
> >• sorry, I like to bed with females.
>
> God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.
>
> > "J" might be interested.
>
>

• Nice?

[duke]

Blah, blah, blah.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:36:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:27:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:12:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:47:02 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> >• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
>>>>> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.
>>>>• When did they stop?
>>>
>>>Never of us ever supported it.
>>>
>>>>>You see, we should all be getting alone
>>>>> together.
>>>>• sorry, I like to bed with females.
>>>
>>>God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.
>>>
>>
>>Your insane level of hypocrisy is noted, troglodyte.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.
>

Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrital fake Catholic, Dork.

[duke]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:54:14 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:36:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:27:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:12:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:47:02 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> >• I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
>>>>>> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.
>>>>>• When did they stop?
>>>>
>>>>Never of us ever supported it.
>>>>
>>>>>>You see, we should all be getting alone
>>>>>> together.
>>>>>• sorry, I like to bed with females.
>>>>
>>>>God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your insane level of hypocrisy is noted, troglodyte.
>>
>>Blah, blah, blah.

>Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrital fake Catholic, Dork.

You're an atheist wannabe, grik. You don't even know who we are or what we
stand for. Go find you a dog in the woods.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 07:09:19 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:54:14 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:36:37 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:27:50 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
>>><dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:12:35 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:47:02 -0700, r...@somis.org (�RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <gnpds8tupnddi3tv5...@4ax.com>, duke
>>>>>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> >� I do not support trying to save child diddler priests from justice.
>>>>>>> Neither do I. Neither does the RCC.
>>>>>>� When did they stop?
>>>>>
>>>>>Never of us ever supported it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You see, we should all be getting alone
>>>>>>> together.
>>>>>>� sorry, I like to bed with females.
>>>>>
>>>>>God notes your lack of desire to be nice to others.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Your insane level of hypocrisy is noted, troglodyte.
>>>
>>>Blah, blah, blah.
>
>>Doesn't change the fact that you're a hypocrital fake Catholic, Dork.
>
>You're an atheist wannabe, grik. You don't even know who we are or what we
>stand for. Go find you a dog in the woods.
>

You don't even know what atheism is, troglodyte. You try and warp
everything to your narrow little point of view.

I have a reasonable grasp of theology... and it's all based on wishful
thinking and hearsay. Nothing you've said at any point proves
otherwise.

Additionally, your own personal viewpoints make you a vile and bigoted
racist piece of shit.... so well done there. I'm sure most other
Catholics are absolutely embarrassed by you.... after all, I don't see
anybody leaping to your defense.

Finally.... and this is the most disturbing part of all... what is it
with your obsession with my sexuality? First my nuts... then wanting
me to pound my meat.... that wasn't enough... so now you're advocating
bestiality.

You're a sick and twisted little man, Dork. You need to get some help
for those fantasies of yours.

[PATRICK]

Gosh, dreamland, you sound angry.
I hope you find peace.
(You piece of shit!)

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g8cms8h2d8d4up1r3...@4ax.com>,

Well, there is Patrick.

> Finally.... and this is the most disturbing part of all... what is it
> with your obsession with my sexuality? First my nuts... then wanting
> me to pound my meat.... that wasn't enough... so now you're advocating
> bestiality.

Not to mention his obsession with your butt.

> You're a sick and twisted little man, Dork. You need to get some help
> for those fantasies of yours.

Indeed.

I wonder if his head exploded after the Supremes released their opinions
on DOMA and Prop 8.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[duke]

On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:26:23 -0400, Dreamer In Colore

Come on, kid. You are in a lose/no win situation.

[PATRICK]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>I wonder if his head exploded after the Supremes released their opinions
>on DOMA and Prop 8.

My head didn't explode.
and I was not pissed off.
Just disappointed.
I knew it would happen sooner or later.
The fag agenda is working.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <c6fos859jnuda4rp9...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

• Just wait until the beastie boys start kvetching that they are being
denied equal rights because they can't get married like gay couples.

[PATRICK]

Next, I expect some fag to demand to be married to his best friend -
his dog. Sooner or later that will happen. And you know it.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <9n2ps89hofp0r0t04...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

• Sure but if he is humping a female dog, he is not homo.

[Mike Painter]

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:57:30 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

Patrick will probably never be able to grasp the concept of consent
and I suspect it extends to his family.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

Patrick just told me in another thread that knowing one should turn a
pedophile over to the police is "Monday morning quarterbacking".

[Dreamer In Colore]

Rather a horrible analogy, don't you think? What with all those boys
being wide receivers?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <cbj3t8tsp1ogfr2q4...@6ax.com>,

š• going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to take one
my helper girl's 2 daughters to and from preschool. One morning in late
2008 the older one told me her father had licked her girl parts when he
was drinking beer
. The next day I asked the younger one if the father had done this to
her. She said yes so I did my duty and reported this to to Child Welfare
for Ventura County. They investigated and concluded the father had not
licked them but someone else did. They interviewed me, told me they
thought I licked said girl parts. I told them that they needed to ask the
girls about me but they never did. It was like they were on a mission to
add doubt and protect the perp. During the interrogation the police told
me three lies. This was disenchanting to me.

[PATRICK]

40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
You are whining after the fact.
That is like demanding we close the barn door after the horse was
already stolen.

[PATRICK]

tell me more, dreamboat.

[PATRICK]

Well then, you know how it feels to be wrongly accused.
What do you think that a family feels when the dead priest is accused
10 years after he has died?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <5604t8lr52cnvidu1...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

• IME boys typically are not going to make up stories about being sodded
by a priest because it's embarrassing to the story-teller --- unless he
is gay.

[PATRICK]

Or he is looking for a payday.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <7ve5t8lp88sh2rkh0...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

• Lying about a priest is no problem for TBRCs?

[PATRICK]

Real Catholics don't make up stories, hide behind a moniker of "John
Doe # 23, and don't demand money for something that didn't happen.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <8bv5t859tshg212s7...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

•• Acccording to RC teaching, one is supposedly breaking the Sin of
Detraction by revealing truths that are embarrasing. I do not believe
this.

[PATRICK]

>> >> >> >�� going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

This detraction thingie - is this another one of your little rules
passed in 1079?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <qaf6t85lmdbnpv861...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

> >> >> >> >š• going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

• don't know. I found the Sin of Detraction in a RCC 1958 CCD Manual.
None of their rules are my rules.

[duke]

You sure it's truth and not gossip?

[•RLMeasures]

In article <qc48t8p46pobucvd5...@4ax.com>, duke

• I had no idea that the RCC published gossip. Tell me about it and how
did you find this out?

[PATRICK]

>> >> >> >> >�� going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

I don't recall any priest telling me about the sin of detraction.
But then, since I try not to detract, I wouldn't have to fess this
one. Try to remember that I once gave a definition of what sin is...
and it all has to do with intent.
If I detracted sumbuddy, but didn't mean to cause harm, then I
certainly haven't sinned. Hoewever, if I subtract him from humanity
with prejudice, then it probably is a sin.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <esb9t8p19sehdo59c...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

> >> >> >> >> >š• going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

• heterosexual boys should be warned about sodomist priests,

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:esb9t8p19sehdo59c...@4ax.com...

>
>On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 17:30:29 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>
>>In article <qaf6t85lmdbnpv861...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
>><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 10:06:08 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <8bv5t859tshg212s7...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
>>> ><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 05:09:17 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >In article <7ve5t8lp88sh2rkh0...@4ax.com>, PATRICK
>>> >> ><pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 02:32:57 -0700, r...@somis.org (•RLMeasures)
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >

>>> >> >> >• IME boys typically are not going to make up stories about

>>being sodded
>>> >> >> >by a priest because it's embarrassing to the story-teller ---
>>unless he
>>> >> >> >is gay.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Or he is looking for a payday.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >• Lying about a priest is no problem for TBRCs?
>>> >>
>>> >> Real Catholics don't make up stories, hide behind a moniker of "John
>>> >> Doe # 23, and don't demand money for something that didn't happen.
>>> >
>>> > •• Acccording to RC teaching, one is supposedly breaking the Sin of
>>> >Detraction by revealing truths that are embarrasing. I do not believe
>>> >this.
>>>
>>> This detraction thingie - is this another one of your little rules
>>> passed in 1079?
>>
>>• don't know. I found the Sin of Detraction in a RCC 1958 CCD Manual.
>>None of their rules are my rules.
>
>
>I don't recall any priest telling me about the sin of detraction.
>But then, since I try not to detract, I wouldn't have to fess this
>one. Try to remember that I once gave a definition of what sin is...
>and it all has to do with intent.
>

It is not most people's intent to do wrong, which means most people are not
sinners, which means the RCC is a liar for calling everyone such for a
start.

>
>If I detracted sumbuddy, but didn't mean to cause harm, then I
>certainly haven't sinned. Hoewever, if I subtract him from humanity
>with prejudice, then it probably is a sin.
>

You do that every day to so called "Catholic bashers".


--
A god figure that tries to use fear, oppression and terror to win your love
and obedience is clearly a false god figure.
All legalistic and petty type religions that promote such gods like Judaism,
Christianity and Islam are nothing but false, controlling religions and
should be avoided.

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:e104t8dsuimc817bf...@4ax.com...

Bishops etc. are irresponsible?

>
>You are whining after the fact.
>

Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??

The only reason the action was so belated is because the church authorities
are so irresponsible, dopey and corrupt.
And that hasn't really changed very much.
In fact if the victims and media hadn't kicked up a stink now then those
priests would still be doing the dirty stuff in earnest.

>
>That is like demanding we close the barn door after the horse was
>already stolen.
>

That's not how justice works.
Apparently you Catholics don't believe in it.

[PATRICK]

>> >> >> >> >> >�� going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

What is stopping you?

[PATRICK]

"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>"PATRICK" wrote in message

>>I don't recall any priest telling me about the sin of detraction.
>>But then, since I try not to detract, I wouldn't have to fess this
>>one. Try to remember that I once gave a definition of what sin is...
>>and it all has to do with intent.
>>
>
>It is not most people's intent to do wrong, which means most people are not
>sinners, which means the RCC is a liar for calling everyone such for a
>start.

You have never sinned?
Your little god must be so proud of you.
You know that I am.

[PATRICK]

"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>"PATRICK" wrote in message

>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>
>
>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?

I didn't say that.
Where have ya been, andy?
Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?

>>You are whining after the fact.
>
>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??

Yes, when they are dead and gone.
Why don't you go after Hitler again?

>The only reason the action was so belated is because the church authorities
>are so irresponsible, dopey and corrupt.
>And that hasn't really changed very much.
>In fact if the victims and media hadn't kicked up a stink now then those
>priests would still be doing the dirty stuff in earnest.

Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis…..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
prayer". However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
back into ministry. This approach viewed pedophilia as an addiction,
such as alcoholism which many feel cannot be cured but which can be
treated and restrained.
In 1962, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred
Congregation of the Holy Office, sent a letter which became known as
the Crimen sollicitationis. In this letter, the Holy Office laid down
procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or
bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the
sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents. In
addition, it reiterated the seriousness and gravity of ever breaking
the seal of confession.
In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which
included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by
clerics as a canonical crime.
The burgeoning number of scandals evoked deep concern among some
Catholic observers, and in 1985 a confidential report entitled "The
Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the
Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Matter" was submitted to
the Catholic hierarchy. The authors included Gauthe's attorney, F. Ray
Mouton, and two clerics [priests], Thomas P. Doyle and Michael
Peterson.... The group warned of the need to take urgent action in the
face of scandals, to react swiftly to complaints, and also to avoid
charges of secretive proceedings or cover-ups. (p. 37) Tragically,
either this advice was not followed, or not followed often enough.
This approach continued to be practiced by the bishops well into the
mid-1980s, a period which characterizes as the "tipping point in the
understanding of the problem within the church and in society".
Pope John Paul II took a number of steps to address the problem of
priestly formation. On March 25, 1992, he completed the apostolic
exhortation Pastores Dabo Vobis ("I Shall Give You Shepherds"), one of
the longest papal documents in history. This explored the crisis of
priestly identity, the renewal of priestly life and the reform of
seminaries in detail. Some have attributed the scant number of abuse
allegations from the 1990s as evidence that the late Pope's reform
efforts were fruitful.
In April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued Sacramentorum sanctitatis
tutela (Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments). This replaced
the Crimen sollicitationis. All priestly sex crimes cases were to be
placed under the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
which, in most cases, would authorize the bishops to conduct trials
themselves. In May 2001, a letter from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the
1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was sent to the Catholic
bishops.
Pope John Paul II declared in 2003 that "there is no place in the
priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".
With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the
United States instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including
requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers and,
noting the preponderance of adolescent males (teenage boys) amongst
victims of abuse, warned that a more searching inquiry is necessary
for a homosexually oriented man; and the worldwide Church also
prohibited the ordination of men with "deep-seated homosexual
tendencies."
Early in 2010 Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the head of the Congregation
for Clergy, said that instances of sexual abuse by priests were
"criminal facts" as well as serious sins and required co-operation
with the civil justice system
The Pope took the extraordinary steps of ordering the retirement of
Cardinal Bernard Law Archbishop John Aloysius Ward, the most senior
member of the Roman Catholic Church in Wales, in the wake of a
paedophile scandal which rocked their dioceses to its foundations. The
72-year-old archbishop Ward, who had been under severe criticism from
clergy and congregations following the convictions of two priests for
child sexual abuse offences, was forced to resign despite making clear
his determination to stay in office. He had been accused of repeatedly
ignoring warnings about the two priests' conduct.

[duke]

>>> >> >> >> >š• going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I used to

I never heard of it either.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 18:19:35 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

On the contrary, rightard.

40 years ago, the RCC had the same responsibility as they do now.

Raping children isn't a crime that's new to the books.

You're problem is that Catholicism has so destroyed your mind that you
can no longer understand your legal and moral duty to your fellow
human beings, and are instead a slave to the RCC.

You're nothing but a dirty, filthy Catholic, and it makes my skin
crawl to know that people like you and Dook are alive and living in
the same country I live in.

Fuck off and die, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 06:40:00 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

> "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>
>
>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>
>>
>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>
>I didn't say that.

You sure as hell did, rightard.

You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
turning in rapists to the police.

You're a vile, disgusting little man, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[duke]

YOU.........brought up the sin of man.

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:6ujat859ut2s7e4c3...@4ax.com...

>
>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>
>>>I don't recall any priest telling me about the sin of detraction.
>>>But then, since I try not to detract, I wouldn't have to fess this
>>>one. Try to remember that I once gave a definition of what sin is...
>>>and it all has to do with intent.
>>>
>>
>>It is not most people's intent to do wrong, which means most people are
>>not
>>sinners, which means the RCC is a liar for calling everyone such for a
>>start.
>
>You have never sinned?
>

Correct. I've never intended harm to anyone.
Have you?

>
>Your little god must be so proud of you.
>You know that I am.
>

I don't worship gods.
That only serves to separate man from man.

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...

>
>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>
>
>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>
>>
>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>
>I didn't say that.
>

So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?

>
>Where have ya been, andy?
>Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?
>
>
>>>You are whining after the fact.
>>
>>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??
>
>Yes, when they are dead and gone.
>Why don't you go after Hitler again?
>

Rubbish. The priests being currently tried are very much alive.
How ignorant are you?

>
>
>>The only reason the action was so belated is because the church
>>authorities
>>are so irresponsible, dopey and corrupt.
>>And that hasn't really changed very much.
>>In fact if the victims and media hadn't kicked up a stink now then those
>>priests would still be doing the dirty stuff in earnest.
>
>Actions by the Vatican - taken to stop the abuse crisis…..
>

...only after the victims started coming forward and it got into the media.
Otherwise it would still be going on.

>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
>
>Catholic bishops in the 50's and 60's viewed sexual abuse by priests
>as "a spiritual problem, one requiring a spiritual solution, i.e.
>prayer".
>

Prayer doesn't work in this kind of situation, because priests have the free
will to hide and continue their activities if they desire.
Same with the senior clergy regarding whether to stop it or not.

>
>However, starting in the sixties, the bishops came to adopt
>an emerging view based on the advice of medical personnel who
>recommended psychiatric and psychological treatment for those who
>sexually abused minors. This view asserted that, with proper
>treatment, priests who had molested children could safely be placed
>back into ministry.
>

What medical/psychiatric treatment was available for paedophilia 60 years
ago?
None that I know of.
So I guess they totally lucked out on the spiritual solution then?

[PATRICK]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>turning in rapists to the police.

<yawn>
You have been lying again.
You need another time out.
You are dismissed.
You may address me again on Saturday.

[PATRICK]

On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 22:47:56 +1000, "Andrew W"

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...
>>
>>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>>
>>I didn't say that.
>>
>
>So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?

Because the commie shrinks claimed they could cure the fags.

>>Where have ya been, andy?
>>Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?
>>
>>
>>>>You are whining after the fact.
>>>
>>>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??
>>
>>Yes, when they are dead and gone.
>>Why don't you go after Hitler again?
>>
>
>Rubbish. The priests being currently tried are very much alive.
>How ignorant are you?

Tried for hat?
Which priests?

[PATRICK]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>40 years ago, the RCC had the same responsibility as they do now.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <1tjat8lq44cnk7vf3...@4ax.com>, PATRICK

> >> >> >> >> >> >š• going to law enforcement carries risk. Example: I

• I haven't stopped advocating rear-view mirrors for heterosexual
altar-boys since 2001.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <3roat8l9v6hamc3hs...@4ax.com>, duke

• and you strode into quicksand. Maybe an occasional 1-minute think
break would help?

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:rqlbt8hfsf68ql22h...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 22:47:56 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>>>
>>>I didn't say that.
>>>
>>
>>So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?
>
>Because the commie shrinks
>

Commie shrinks?
We have a redneck here.

>
> claimed they could cure the fags.
>

Trying to shift the blame/errors yet again?
Why didn't they take legal action when that didn't work ?
You and the clergy are equally naive and irresponsible.

>
>>>Where have ya been, andy?
>>>Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You are whining after the fact.
>>>>
>>>>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??
>>>
>>>Yes, when they are dead and gone.
>>>Why don't you go after Hitler again?
>>>
>>
>>Rubbish. The priests being currently tried are very much alive.
>>How ignorant are you?
>
>Tried for hat?
>Which priests?
>

Playing dumb again won't help you.

Or maybe you just cover your ears whenever the news comes on.


Your snipping of half the post shows what thin ground you're on.

[duke]

I stand my ground.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:15:09 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>40 years ago, the RCC had the same responsibility as they do now.
>
><yawn>

On the contrary, rightard.

40 years ago, the RCC had the same responsibility as they do now.

Raping children isn't a crime that's new to the books.

You're problem is that Catholicism has so destroyed your mind that you
can no longer understand your legal and moral duty to your fellow
human beings, and are instead a slave to the RCC.

You're nothing but a dirty, filthy Catholic, and it makes my skin
crawl to know that people like you and Dook are alive and living in
the same country I live in.

Fuck off and die, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <maadt8tfkqkbk0qe8...@4ax.com>, duke

• ____

[PATRICK]

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:54:40 +1000, "Andrew W"

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>news:rqlbt8hfsf68ql22h...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 22:47:56 +1000, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say that.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?
>>
>>Because the commie shrinks
>>
>
>Commie shrinks?
>We have a redneck here.

Shrinks are like ass holes like you.
They think they have something of importance to say.
They have no integrity, no knowledge of life, and nothing of
importance to say.

>> claimed they could cure the fags.
>>
>
>Trying to shift the blame/errors yet again?

Are you claiming they did not make those bogus claims?

>Why didn't they take legal action when that didn't work ?
>You and the clergy are equally naive and irresponsible.

By taking legal action against the shrinks would have prolonged the
crisis and the misery to the victims. Plus, there were too many
different "crisis" or "counseling" centers that would have had to be
sued. Would you like a list?

>>>>Where have ya been, andy?
>>>>Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You are whining after the fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??
>>>>
>>>>Yes, when they are dead and gone.
>>>>Why don't you go after Hitler again?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Rubbish. The priests being currently tried are very much alive.
>>>How ignorant are you?
>>
>>Tried for hat?
>>Which priests?
>>
>
>Playing dumb again won't help you.

Obviously, you can't come up with a bunch of names.

>Or maybe you just cover your ears whenever the news comes on.

Obviously, you can't come up with a bunch of names.

>Your snipping of half the post shows what thin ground you're on.

Did you have anything important for me to respond to?

[PATRICK]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Fuck off and die, rightard.

It's not Saturday yet, is it?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>turning in rapists to the police.
>
><yawn>

You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
turning in rapists to the police.

You're a vile, disgusting little man, rightard.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 10:39:57 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

> Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Fuck off and die, rightard.
>
>It's not Saturday yet, is it?

On the contrary, rightard.

40 years ago, the RCC had the same responsibility as they do now.

Raping children isn't a crime that's new to the books.

You're problem is that Catholicism has so destroyed your mind that you
can no longer understand your legal and moral duty to your fellow
human beings, and are instead a slave to the RCC.

You're nothing but a dirty, filthy Catholic, and it makes my skin
crawl to know that people like you and Dook are alive and living in
the same country I live in.

Fuck off and die, rightard.

[duke]

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>
>><yawn>

>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>turning in rapists to the police.

Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>
>>><yawn>
>
>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>turning in rapists to the police.
>
>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?

I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.

That Roman Catholic priests raped children is a fact that's beyond
dispute.

That the Roman Catholic power structure protected such priests is also
a fact that's beyond dispute.

Catholics who deny these facts are vile, disgusting degenerates and
they, most especially -you-, Dook, deserve to burn in the Catholic
hell.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.






>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:14:29 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 22:47:56 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>>>
>>>I didn't say that.
>>>
>>
>>So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?
>
>Because the commie shrinks claimed they could cure the fags.

Excuses, excuses, excuses...

You rightards rejected everything else any "commie" ever said,
rightard.

Why not this?

Because, the RCC didn't -want- to turn pedophile priests over to
authorities, so it grasped to anything that they could use to justify
not doing so.

The level of denialism you Catholics engage in leaves few other
alternatives.

You'll be forever tainted with the foul stench of Catholicism, you
vile, disgusting degenerate, and you deserve to be.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.





>
>

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:3h0gt8lkqt0el7hf1...@4ax.com...

>
>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>
>>><yawn>
>
>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>turning in rapists to the police.
>
>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>

Its all over the internet.
Do you know how to use the internet?

[Andrew W]

>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>news:e9mdt89403qurjuhg...@4ax.com...

>
>On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:54:40 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>news:rqlbt8hfsf68ql22h...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Thu, 4 Jul 2013 22:47:56 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>>>news:11kat8ldoeratq856...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>"PATRICK" wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>40 Years ago, no one had the responsibility to do this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bishops etc. are irresponsible?
>>>>>
>>>>>I didn't say that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So why didn't they do something 30+ years ago?
>>>
>>>Because the commie shrinks
>>>
>>
>>Commie shrinks?
>>We have a redneck here.
>
>Shrinks are like ass holes like you.
>They think they have something of importance to say.
>They have no integrity, no knowledge of life, and nothing of
>importance to say.
>

Get some treatment for your paranoia.

So why did the RCC even listen to them if they're so horrible?
Is the Vatican that dumb?
Or is someone lying?

>
>
>
>>> claimed they could cure the fags.
>>>
>>
>>Trying to shift the blame/errors yet again?
>
>Are you claiming they did not make those bogus claims?
>

I'm claiming that you're dodging and shifting due to your state of denial.

>
>>Why didn't they take legal action when that didn't work ?
>>You and the clergy are equally naive and irresponsible.
>
>By taking legal action against the shrinks would have prolonged the
>crisis and the misery to the victims.
>

Rubbish. It would have expedited justice and brought closure for the victims
and their families.
Delaying the whole thing was the exact intent of the RCC to avoid problems
for themselves, including the RCC being seen as anything but Godly.
All you do is make up excuses.

>
> Plus, there were too many
>different "crisis" or "counseling" centers that would have had to be
>sued. Would you like a list?
>
>
>>>>>Where have ya been, andy?
>>>>>Have ya been communing in the 4th dimension again?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You are whining after the fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wanting to bring wrong doers to justice is whining??
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, when they are dead and gone.
>>>>>Why don't you go after Hitler again?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rubbish. The priests being currently tried are very much alive.
>>>>How ignorant are you?
>>>
>>>Tried for hat?
>>>Which priests?
>>>
>>
>>Playing dumb again won't help you.
>
>Obviously, you can't come up with a bunch of names.
>

I'm not involved in the investigations.
But many of the names can be found on the net.
I won't do your homework for you.

>
>>Or maybe you just cover your ears whenever the news comes on.
>
>Obviously, you can't come up with a bunch of names.
>

I won't do your homework for you.

>
>>Your snipping of half the post shows what thin ground you're on.
>
>Did you have anything important for me to respond to?
>

No need to respond.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>
>>><yawn>
>
>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>turning in rapists to the police.
>
>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?

Out of all the truly vile things that spew out of your rectum of a
mouth, the denialist stance about the coverup of child rape in the RCC
is the worst.

You're disgusting. You are a complete piece of shit for holding this
stance, and the glee with which you prance about while you shout it
from the rooftops is ridiculous.

Here's the thing, you filthy apologist: the RCC paid out BILLIONS of
dollars to stop the trials from moving forward. If the priests were
innocent, the RCC would have defended them at all costs to demonstrate
the sanctity of their representatives.... but no. This didn't happen.
What happened is undeniable, and nothing you can say or do will
mitigate your sick and twisted thoughts.

You're pathetic. Worse than contemptible. You don't even have the
balls to stand up like a man and decry what happened. That, Dorkster,
makes you the piece of shit that you are... and no matter what else
you do in your miserable existence, you will never live that down.

Have fun in the flames, apology boy. This discussion's over.... and
that taste of crow that's in your mouth? You know... the grik one?
That just confirms that you lost.

[duke]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:49:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>
>>>><yawn>
>>
>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>
>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>
>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.

You can't.

[duke]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 10:56:15 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>>"duke" wrote in message news:3h0gt8lkqt0el7hf1...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>
>>>><yawn>
>>
>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>
>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>Its all over the internet.
>Do you know how to use the internet?

No evidence, no witnesses.

[duke]

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 00:59:25 -0400, Dreamer In Colore
<dreamer...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>
>>>><yawn>
>>
>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>
>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?

>Out of all the truly vile things that spew out of your rectum of a
>mouth, the denialist stance about the coverup of child rape in the RCC
>is the worst.

If you were a grownup, grik, you can find the names, pictures, and assignment
history for every accused priest right there on the internet and at one url to
boot. You could even find that out of 256 accusations in caleefornia, 16
convictions were obtained (6%), and at out of 600 or so in Masssachusetts, 31
convictions (6%) were obtained.

It's people like you that made it very easy for me to reveal the truth to the
world, and to demonstrate your unbelievable ignorance on top of that..

>You're disgusting. You are a complete piece of shit for holding this
>stance, and the glee with which you prance about while you shout it
>from the rooftops is ridiculous.

6%, 6%, 6%. How many times do I have to spend my time showing your ass, grik?

>Here's the thing, you filthy apologist: the RCC paid out BILLIONS of
>dollars to stop the trials from moving forward.

Especially with no witnesses and no evidence. That's how loving the RCC is,
grik. heeheehee.

>If the priests were
>innocent, the RCC would have defended them at all costs to demonstrate
>the sanctity of their representatives

Au contraire, the RCC paid for the damage to children by their employees even
WITHOUT necessary trials - billions of dollars, grik, billions of dollars.

>... but no. This didn't happen.
>What happened is undeniable,

Yes, I know. That's why you make an ass of yourself every day.

>You're pathetic. Worse than contemptible. You don't even have the
>balls to stand up like a man and decry what happened. That, Dorkster,
>makes you the piece of shit that you are... and no matter what else
>you do in your miserable existence, you will never live that down.
>
>Have fun in the flames, apology boy. This discussion's over.... and
>that taste of crow that's in your mouth? You know... the grik one?
>That just confirms that you lost.

You really are a dirty-mouthed dumb kid, aren't you, grik. It's people like you
that give me every chance to bring the truth out for all to see. And to watch
you show your butt over and over and over.

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 07:12:50 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:49:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>
>>>>><yawn>
>>>
>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>
>>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>>
>>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.
>
>You can't.


I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.

That Roman Catholic priests raped children is a fact that's beyond
dispute.

That the Roman Catholic power structure protected such priests is also
a fact that's beyond dispute.

Catholics who deny these facts are vile, disgusting degenerates and
they, most especially -you-, Dook, deserve to burn in the Catholic
hell.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.





>

[Andrew W]

>"duke" wrote in message news:dqmit89ttb8ij1i0g...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 10:56:15 +1000, "Andrew W"
><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>news:3h0gt8lkqt0el7hf1...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>
>>>>><yawn>
>>>
>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>
>>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>>Its all over the internet.
>>Do you know how to use the internet?
>
>No evidence, no witnesses.
>

So?
There have been many such crimes throughout history.
How about rape cases etc?
Court cases can be won on human testimony alone.

But there have been admissions by priests and clergy.
And there have now been admissions of cover-ups.

[duke]

On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:51:00 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 07:12:50 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:49:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><yawn>
>>>>
>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>
>>>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>>>
>>>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.
>>
>>You can't.

>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.

Where's the evidence, the witnesses, the convictions?

[duke]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 10:45:42 +1000, "Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>

wrote:

>>"duke" wrote in message news:dqmit89ttb8ij1i0g...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 10:56:15 +1000, "Andrew W"
>><spam_a...@optusnet.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>"duke" wrote in message
>>>>news:3h0gt8lkqt0el7hf1...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><yawn>
>>>>
>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>
>>>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>>>Its all over the internet.
>>>Do you know how to use the internet?
>>
>>No evidence, no witnesses.
>>
>
>So?
>There have been many such crimes throughout history.
>How about rape cases etc?
>Court cases can be won on human testimony alone.

Don't you mean witness testimony?

>But there have been admissions by priests and clergy.
>And there have now been admissions of cover-ups.

[•RLMeasures]

In article <h9alt853v3aa582uc...@4ax.com>, duke

• Sometimes circumstantial evidence convicts. The trouble with
witnesses is that some have agendas, some have relatives with pending
court cases, - and the likelyhood of a pedopriest being drunk enough to
hookup with an altar-boy in view of a non-pedophile priest is exceedingly
small.
>

[Silen...@hotmail.com]

On Mon, 08 Jul 2013 06:57:27 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 13:51:00 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 07:12:50 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:49:49 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 06:42:13 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:49:01 -0400, Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 16:12:13 -0400, PATRICK <pbark...@woh.rr.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><yawn>
>>>>>
>>>>>>You gave the entire Roman Catholic power structure a pass for not
>>>>>>turning in rapists to the police.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where was the evidence? Where were the witnesses?
>>>>
>>>>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.
>>>
>>>You can't.
>
>>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.
>
>Where's the evidence, the witnesses, the convictions?

I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.

That Roman Catholic priests raped children is a fact that's beyond
dispute.

That the Roman Catholic power structure protected such priests is also
a fact that's beyond dispute.

Catholics who deny these facts are vile, disgusting degenerates and
they, most especially -you-, Dook, deserve to burn in the Catholic
hell.

Heh heh...

Lying racist rightard socialists...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.









>

[PATRICK]

Silen...@hotmail.com wrote:

>I'll not indulge your denialism, Dook.
>That Roman Catholic priests raped children is a fact that's beyond
>dispute.

50 years ago.
once or twice.