Catholic bashing?
userper
Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
not a cult.
We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
scandals.
See
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cath_attacked.htm
Catholic faith under attack by fundamentalists.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/bob_jones/bob_jones.htm
Bob Jones III is a disgrace to Jesus. He comes to our town and declares the
Bible is "inlolerant."
AJ
very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if this were
another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the rabbi in
NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
"userper" <use...@naxs.com> wrote in message
news:DADo8.40937$cB5....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
skii
>
> We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> scandals.
>
Unfortunately the "vast" number of good Catholics should not be surprised by
the torrent uproar from the media and politicians. The perverted sex among
your clergy has been going on for a extremely long time. That is, the press
has pretty much left the church alone since TV's inception in reference to
this very serious problem. Most Catholics were aware of the perversion
problem and had tried to justify it by minimizing it to a few bad apples.
Apparently this can no longer be classified as such due to the recent
coverage it has received. All the "vast" amount of good Catholics who
are/were apart of this type of organization should not be surprised at the
uproar. They should be surprised on why it has taken so long. In this, the
media cannot be totally to blame but, the church as well. So here we have,
for almost 50 media years, the media itself, politicians, insurance
companies, lawyers and the Catholic church protecting church interests
pertaining to this perverse problem. These types of organizations have
always been questionable to themselves in general and the general public.
They rank in popularity, right up there with used car dealers and real
estate salesmen. In other words they have constantly, throughout time, have
proved themselves untrustworthy in general.We all pay the price for the
decisions we make. The good must pay for the bad if they choose to remain
with them. So let us not have anymore holocaust type pity parties for the
Catholic church. Let's fix the problem and move on to the next.
Joe
> We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> scandals.
No, but you can get an idea of their character by how they react to this
crisis.
Those that sit back and do nothing while priests and bishops continue their
lies,
and blame shuffling are part of the problem. If I was still RC I would be up
in arms
about this, doing whatever was necessary to help effect change. Whether it
was organizing
petitions to send to the vatican or organizing a witholding of contributions
etc... But meekly going along
with the program and getting mad at people who point out this abuse and
saying things like,
"all these anti-catholics are picking on us" is pathetic.
Will Nordmeyer
"Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
news:lUJo8.2030$d7.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
hysteria and bias in the media?
Do you know if they are out organizing petitions, contacting their
diocese, calling their priests... MOST Roman Catholics are upset about
this and I know many who ARE doing what they can.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
DawnoftheForest
>From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
>Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>
>I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people. The media is
>very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if this were
>another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the rabbi in
>NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
Dawn
DawnoftheForest
>From: "Joe" jlav...@SPAMameritech.net
>Date: 3/28/02 2:10 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <lUJo8.2030$d7.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>
I am in total agreement. Trust me when I say that I have never been so happy
that I left as right now.
I do feel for the recent converts though. Can you imagine sitting through all
those hours of RCIA and then finding out about this scandal?
I bet it gave more then a few people pause! Dawn
Will Nordmeyer
"DawnoftheForest" <dawnoft...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020328150249...@mb-mb.aol.com...
But there weren't weeks & months of articles about it.
DawnoftheForest
>From: "Will Nordmeyer" wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net
>Date: 3/28/02 3:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ca3784f$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>
>
>
>"DawnoftheForest" <dawnoft...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020328150249...@mb-mb.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Catholic bashing?
>> >From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
>> >Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>> >
>> >I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people. The
>media is
>> >very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if
>this were
>> >another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the
>rabbi in
>> >NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
>>
>> You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
>> Dawn
>
>But there weren't weeks & months of articles about it.
That is because there weren't hundreds of rabbis and the Jews did noty cover
it all up for years - get real. Dawn
Will Nordmeyer
I am real Dawn... real enough to recognize bashing when I see it...
Will Nordmeyer
"George Tirebiter" <Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:280320021500135044%Tireb...@netscape.net...
> In article <3ca3784f$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>, Will Nordmeyer
> <wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net> wrote:
>
> > "DawnoftheForest" <dawnoft...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020328150249...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: Catholic bashing?
> > > >From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
> > > >Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > > >Message-id:
<psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
> > > >
> > > >I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people.
The
> > media is
> > > >very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great
time...if
> > this were
> > > >another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the
> > rabbi in
> > > >NY who molested his nephew is never heard of
again...Interesting!!
> > >
> > > You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
> > > Dawn
> >
> > But there weren't weeks & months of articles about it.
>
> hundreds. Maybe because there was no evidence of an institutional
> policy to deliberately conceal molestation. Do you see the difference?
>
> One word, Will: BISHOPS!
> It's not the priests that are the focus of all these articles, it's
the bishops.
Not according to the headlilnes I've been reading from Karen's posts...
the PRIESTS are the focus... and ridiculous notions about celibacy
causing this, etc.
> They ran a criminal conspiracy that allowed a few bad priests to run
amok
No criminal conspiracy George... it was not legally required for them to
report it. At least YOU are honest enough to admit it's a FEW
priests.
> They let this happen for decades.
And now they are finally fixing it... so why do you need to read every
article and every disgusting detail of it?
> Why can't you face this issue instead of your constand whining and
complaining?
I have faced the issue George...As have most of us... Which is why I
know
Why is it that you, Mac, Karen, Dawn and others seem to think that
because some of us don't enjoy, revel in, or thirst for EVERY article
about this, because we are actually disturbed by the obsessiveness of
these posts, etc. you think we don't face the issue.
Will Nordmeyer
> In article <3ca371e0$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>, Will Nordmeyer
But the media is exaserbating it...
> The Catholic Church brought it on herself. These wounds are
self-inflicted. Most of the hard-news
> reporting on TV and in newspapers has been fair, as have the
editorials."
>
> William Donohue, President Catholic League for Religious and Civil
Rights
>
Yeah... fair... "8 clergy arrested, 2 of them Catholic priests" that's
fair reporting...
Yeah... fair... claiming the Hamilton County prosecutor is in a
confrontation with the Archdiocese when, in fact, the DIOCESE requested
the subpoena to keep the names of the victims AND accused confidential
until charges are brough.
With respect to Mr. Donohue, I disagree.
> >
> > Do you know if they are out organizing petitions, contacting their
> > diocese, calling their priests... MOST Roman Catholics are upset
about
> > this and I know many who ARE doing what they can.
>
> But the people complaining the loudest about the media are doing
> nothing.
> >
And you know that exactly HOW?
CeCe
> "DawnoftheForest" <dawnoft...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020328150249...@mb-mb.aol.com...
> > >Subject: Re: Catholic bashing?
> > >From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
> > >Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
> > >
> > >I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people. The
> media is
> > >very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if
> this were
> > >another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the
> rabbi in
> > >NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
> >
> > You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
> > Dawn
>
> But there weren't weeks & months of articles about it.
>
Oh come on Will, that was one instance and it got plenty of coverage for just one
instance. Now multiple that by several hundred accused priests in the US alone, not to
mention allegations throughout the world. A polish bishop, close friend of the pope,
just resigned amid allegations he molested several young boys. This just keeps
growing. I know you are super sensitive to this and don't want to hear more, but it
really is huge news. It's not going away any time soon, and I suggest you work on
accepting that for your own peace of mind.
CeCe
---
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.
--Galileo Galilei
Patrick
> Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New
Testament.
> Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They
are
> not a cult.
> We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> scandals.
+ I agree with your second statement, but.....
+ We really didn't create the creed. We merely placed our beliefs
down on paper. And, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, (& Paul)
were probably not considered Catholics. They certainly were
the first Christians, and the Catholics certainly can trace their roots
back to these individuals.
Patrick
> Unfortunately the "vast" number of good Catholics should not be surprised
by
> the torrent uproar from the media and politicians. The perverted sex among
> your clergy has been
+ YOUR clergy?
+ Gee, I wonder if this person plans to be nice?
+ DUH.
+ I think I'll snip and move on....
CB
userper wrote:
>
> Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New Testament.
> Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
> not a cult.
Sure they are.
>
> We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> scandals.
But we can judge the rcc.
It's a false religion.
--
Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it:
thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite
heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
KeithW
<45DBD4D44DA65BF4.EA02DC9D8EFED0FB.3DF7E64AD07AF1EE@lp.a
irnews.net>, thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> userper wrote:
> >
> > Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New Testament.
> > Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
> > not a cult.
>
> Sure they are.
>
>
> >
> > We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> > scandals.
>
> But we can judge the rcc.
> It's a false religion.
According to what authority?
--
The fallacy of the Sola Scriptura heresy:
"All teachings must be found in the Bible, except
for the teaching that 'all teachings must be found
in the Bible.'"
Will Nordmeyer
> In article <3ca38ca2$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>, Will Nordmeyer
> headlines. But then you would see that this anticatholicism bias is
> just a lie.
>
I read other articles George... I go for more truth, not
sensationalism.
> > the PRIESTS are the focus...
>
> Read the articles instead of whining about them. The actions of the
> bishops are the focus.
>
See above...
> > and ridiculous notions about celibacy causing this, etc.
>
> That's just part of the civil war going on in the church. The leftist
> catholics are saying this is due to celibacy, the rightists are saying
> it's due to vatican II modernism and homosexuality. If you read the
> articles, you'd see that, too.
>
See above.
> > > They ran a criminal conspiracy that allowed a few bad priests to
run
> > amok
> >
> > No criminal conspiracy George... it was not legally required for
them to
> > report it.
>
> But, it is illegal to cover up a crime and allow the criminal to
> continue committing crimes.
>
Actually, no it isn't... otherwise we'd be calling the cops and
reporting every speeder, jaywalker, etc.
> > At least YOU are honest enough to admit it's a FEW
> > priests.
> >
> > > They let this happen for decades.
> >
> > And now they are finally fixing it...
>
> Oh give me a break. You must be even dumber than the bishops to
believe
> that. They have been saying for 20 years that they are finally fixing
> the problem.
No... they haven't been saying what they are saying today. If you'd
just put your hatred aside for a few minutes and actually READ some
honest articles, not just the sensationalist ones, you might see that.
Will Nordmeyer
"CeCe" <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:3CA39ADC...@erols.com...
Boston has turned over records on 80 in 40 years in Boston... others
are similar... not 80 CURRENT ones. Let's do that... force EVERY
religious demonination to cull the past 40 years of records and see how
many are actually reported.
DawnoftheForest
>From: "Will Nordmeyer" wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net
>Date: 3/29/02 7:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ca4629b$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>
If you think abuse of children/ women etc. is not still going on right now you
have to be kidding! These adults who came forward and these old cases are just
the tip of a very rotten iceberg. The 4 and 6 year olds who are being abused as
I
write this will still have their day.
Or do you think all the abuse just stopped due to this scandal?
The point is child abusers can't stop remember? Dawn
Will Nordmeyer
family friends, siblings, etc. may also one day have their day too.
> Or do you think all the abuse just stopped due to this scandal?
> The point is child abusers can't stop remember? Dawn
Yep... and apparently those obsessed with reading about it can't stop
either.
Bruce LaMore
> In article <3ca4624c$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com>, Will Nordmeyer
> <wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net> wrote:
>
> > "George Tirebiter" <Tireb...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Oh give me a break. You must be even dumber than the bishops to
> > believe
> > > that. They have been saying for 20 years that they are finally fixing
> > > the problem.
> >
> > No... they haven't been saying what they are saying today. If you'd
> > just put your hatred aside for a few minutes and actually READ some
> > honest articles, not just the sensationalist ones, you might see that.
>
> One archdiocese, boston, announced a new policy for handling sex abuse.
> A key policy element mandates an established review board, made up of
> priests, lawyers, psychiatrists, and social workers, to evaluate
> allegations. The nine-member board investigates every charge by
> interviewing the victims and the priests; it also offers treatment to
> victims. If a charge of sexual misconduct is found to be true, the
> archdiocese vows to permanently remove that priest from active service.
>
> Does that sound like a positive step toward fixing the problem? Good
> institutional control with no tolerance for abuse within the clergy,
> right? Wrong. This was the policy that boston enacted over 9 years ago.
> Despite this policy that was "fixing" things, Cardinal Law was still
> reassigning Geoghan to positions in contact with children. He didn't
> finally defrock Geoghan, until 5 years after this policy was enacted,
> despite knowing that he had been abusing kids since at least 1979.
>
> So, obviously you are completely wrong when you claim the church is now
> fixing things. They have been singing the same song since the mid
> eighties. If you had really read any objective stories, you would see
> that the buishops have been lying all the time and only a total idiot
> would trust them this time. Are you that kind of idiot?
Why do you even care, George? You not a Catholic ore even a Christian?
Bruce
DawnoftheForest
>From: "Bruce LaMore" bkl...@ev1.net
>Date: 3/29/02 10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3ca48aa2$1...@newsa.ev1.net>
Bruce wrote:
>Why do you even care, George? You not a Catholic ore even a Christian?
>
>Bruce
Hello group,
Note the points made in Bruce's rebuttal. Everything George said was
systematically unproven by
Bruce's intelligent answer. NOT!
I would love to know who really believes intelligent posts here only come from
Catholics?
Bruce is a Catholic, and there is your answer :-)
As usual, George has done his homework and his post is right on the money. Why
do you think everyone is calling for Cardinal Laws resignation?
George wrote:
>This was the policy that boston enacted over 9 years ago.
>> Despite this policy that was "fixing" things, Cardinal Law was
still> reassigning Geoghan to positions in contact with children.
He didn't>> finally defrock Geoghan, until 5 years after this policy was
enacted,>> despite knowing that he had been abusing kids since at least 1979.
>>
>> So, obviously you are completely wrong when you claim the church is now>>
fixing things. They have been singing the same song since the mid
>> eighties. If you had really read any objective stories, you would see
>> that the buishops have been lying all the time and only a total idiot
>> would trust them this time. Are you that kind of idiot?
Bruce and Will can answer that in unison! YES!
PetePanaro
like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostalism, and 7th Day Adventists
than Catholics.
PetePanaro
>From: dawnoft...@aol.com (DawnoftheForest)
>Date: 3/28/2002 3:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020328150249...@mb-mb.aol.com>
Oh, I bet you're ecstatic to hear about more molestations by other religions.
CeCe
> Several hundred CeCe?
Yep. Now add in the worldwide cases. And those are just the ones we know about. Most
of these cases happened in the past. What of the present? How many priests are
actually molesting kids right now? We don't know yet.
I watched the piece on Oprah yesterday, and contrary to what some might believe, she
did not bash the catholic church and neither did anyone else on the program. It was
very well done. But one thing the lawyer and the author she had as guests agreed upon
is that what we are hearing about now is only the tip of the iceberg. They believe
that there are many, many more instances of abuse that are as yet unreported. No one
thinks this is going away any time soon. So be prepared. I hope they are wrong,
because I can't stand the thought of more innocent children being harmed in such a
despicable way, but I will not be a bit surprised if they are right. This is so
tragic.
DawnoftheForest
>From: petep...@aol.com (PetePanaro)
>Date: 3/29/02 1:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20020329132207...@mb-mg.aol.com>
church, right Pete? On Good Friday you have nothing better to do with your time
then write sarcastic comments?
Actually, I always knew about other abuse cases. I not only worked in Human
Services for many years,
but unlike some here I actually read news from around the world. Dawn
bam
"KeithW" <k...@nospam.com> wrote
> > But we can judge the rcc.
> > It's a false religion.
>
> According to what authority?
Allow me, Danny.
"Because dey don't agree wit da Bible!"
BAM
KeithW
mb.aol.com>, dawnoft...@aol.com says...
As one to be received into the Lord's Church tomorrow, I
can state that this has not hindered the faith of my
fellow candidates and myself. To the contrary, we are
stronger in faith. We are stronger in prayer. Out of the
dozen of us who began, none have wavered. None have
fallen.
1Tm:1:15: This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all
acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to
save sinners; of whom I am chief.
Are there sinners in the church? Of course! Are there
hypocrites in the church? You bet! The church is a place
of recovering sinners just as Alcoholics Anonymous is a
place of recovering alcoholics. Sinners do lapse into
sin and alcoholics lapse back into alcoholism. And yet,
we see no media coverage blasting AA for having
alcoholics in its ranks.
If people were without sin, then Christ would not have
had to lay down His life.
Joh:8:7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up
himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin
among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
If you are perfect, then please continue to cast stones.
If not, then do not judge others. To their own Master
they rise or fall.
1Jo:1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
KeithW
<hKRo8.305276$uv5.26...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
geoc...@technogeeks.org says...
> DawnoftheForest wrote:
>
>
> > I am in total agreement. Trust me when I say that I have never been so
> > happy that I left as right now.
> > I do feel for the recent converts though. Can you imagine sitting through
> > all
> > those hours of RCIA and then finding out about this scandal?
> > I bet it gave more then a few people pause! Dawn
> >
> >
>
> I am Catholic and my rightly placed faith cannot be shaken by any Preist's
> personal actions.
Excellent point! It is testament to the power of Christ
that non-Christians can baptise someone into Christ and
that flawed (human) priests can conduct the liturgy. To
be certain, one of the biggest things that drew me to
Mother Church was the fact that I could see the power of
God in her history. For 2000 years, the gospel of our
blessed Lord has survived intact despite a long list of
scoundrels that were popes, bishops, priests and laity.
It is the power of the Holy Spirit securing Christ's
Church.
Can God use a sinner for His work? He used Saul who
became St. Paul didn't he?
Joe
KeithW <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.170eb32a1...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> In article
> > is that because your faith was placed in the Priests?
> > I am Catholic and my rightly placed faith cannot be shaken by any
Preist's
> > personal actions.
>
> Excellent point! It is testament to the power of Christ
> that non-Christians can baptise someone into Christ and
> that flawed (human) priests can conduct the liturgy. To
> be certain, one of the biggest things that drew me to
> Mother Church was the fact that I could see the power of
> God in her history. For 2000 years, the gospel of our
> blessed Lord has survived intact despite a long list of
> scoundrels that were popes, bishops, priests and laity.
> It is the power of the Holy Spirit securing Christ's
> Church.
> Can God use a sinner for His work? He used Saul who
> became St. Paul didn't he?
So somewhere in the grand scheme of things, which by the way is a mystery of
faith.
Which we can't understand God guides a pedo to enter the priesthood to
molest a poor innocent child in
order to further his church.
To address another point, the church has survived 2000 bloody years only
because of the ruthlessness
of the RCC pretty much up to just several hundred years ago. So much that it
has become an entrenched part of western culture.
Once something is ingrained(brainwashed) into a psyche it becomes pretty
hard to leave all of it behind even when
the conscience mind knows better, i.e. all the christmas and easter
catholics.
Add to this man's universal desire to find some meaning to the seeming chaos
that is life. And a desire to "belong"
and to fit into a group, ie. your statement "I am catholic".
Man makes up gods and religions, to help him feel more secure, to give
answers to things that he/she doesn't
understand. To attempt to make a nice tidy package of something that by
nature is vastly unpredictable.
Plus the RC provides a fathering figure of a god for those who need one and
are afraid to face life without a parent figure.
Someone else who can make the moral rules for them.
As knowledge builds especially in the west, people are dropping these
beliefs from another time in record numbers.
Even of those who still cling to their beliefs a majority of them pretty
much ignore a lot of "rules" i.e. birth control,
masturbation, divorce and yes even views on married and or woman priests.
KeithW
jlav...@SPAMameritech.net says...
>
> KeithW <k...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.170eb32a1...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > In article
> > > is that because your faith was placed in the Priests?
> > > I am Catholic and my rightly placed faith cannot be shaken by any
> Preist's
> > > personal actions.
> >
> > Excellent point! It is testament to the power of Christ
> > that non-Christians can baptise someone into Christ and
> > that flawed (human) priests can conduct the liturgy. To
> > be certain, one of the biggest things that drew me to
> > Mother Church was the fact that I could see the power of
> > God in her history. For 2000 years, the gospel of our
> > blessed Lord has survived intact despite a long list of
> > scoundrels that were popes, bishops, priests and laity.
> > It is the power of the Holy Spirit securing Christ's
> > Church.
> > Can God use a sinner for His work? He used Saul who
> > became St. Paul didn't he?
>
> So somewhere in the grand scheme of things, which by the way is a mystery of
> faith.
> Which we can't understand God guides a pedo to enter the priesthood to
> molest a poor innocent child in
> order to further his church.
That would be satan's spin on what I said.
Joe
>
> That would be satan's spin on what I said.
can just dismiss it outright because if it wasn't
you'd actually have to give it some serious thought.
And if you actually gave it some serious thought,
you might just see that there is some truth to it.
R. L. Measures
kwor...@mchsi.com wrote:
€ But didn't God create Satan. Beelzebub and all them li'l Devils ?
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
R. L. Measures
<jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote:
€ Indeed, Joe. One of the principal goals of religious instruction
(inculcation) is to discourage deep thinking about matters of faith.
In A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion, by Fr. Joseph De Harbe,
S.J., on page 77 the following appears -
łIn matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
submit to the decisions of the Holy Church.˛
- In the LDS church, Mormons are told "Lucifer wins a great victory when
he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to do
their own thinking". ... "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been
done. When they propose a plan - it is Godąs plan. When they point the
way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should
mark the end of controversy.˛ (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354).
Joe
>
> yes, and they were created good, but turned bad.
But god in his infinite wisdon must have known that "satan" would turn
"bad", or
even if god didn't know, he allows "satan" to continue to harass,
taunt,tempt and torment humankind, his beloved
creation away from him(and also causing untold, unnecessary grief in the
world), thereby earning a one way trip to the permanent sauna. Why would
god allow such a thing to happen? Oh I get it, god works in mysterious ways
that we can't
understand, right. The patented excuse for those whose minds can't come up
with a reasonable
answer and who won't allow themselves to de-matrix, and to see the forest
through the trees.
R. L. Measures
geoc...@technogeeks.org wrote:
> yes, and they were created good, but turned bad.
€ Too many R-rated flicks ?
R. L. Measures
geoc...@technogeeks.org wrote:
> R. L. Measures wrote:
>
> > In article <4U9p8.2446$d7.7...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Joe"
> > <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > That would be satan's spin on what I said.
> >
> >> No, you call it "satan's spin" because that way you
> >> can just dismiss it outright because if it wasn't
> >> you'd actually have to give it some serious thought.
> >> And if you actually gave it some serious thought,
> >> you might just see that there is some truth to it.
> >
> > € Indeed, Joe. One of the principal goals of religious instruction
> > (inculcation) is to discourage deep thinking about matters of faith.
> > In A Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion, by Fr. Joseph De Harbe,
> > S.J., on page 77 the following appears -
> > ³In matters of faith never trust your own judgment, but always humbly
> > submit to the decisions of the Holy Church.²
> > - In the LDS church, Mormons are told "Lucifer wins a great victory when
> > he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to do
> > their own thinking". ... "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been
> > done. When they propose a plan - it is God¹s plan. When they point the
> > way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should
> > mark the end of controversy.² (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354).
> >
>
> oh give me a break... go purchase a copy of the shorter summa to get
your deep
> thinking started, and get lost in theology all you want.
> no one is stopping you from thinking deep (meditating).
€ The word was "discourage", not "stop".
Joe
Jason <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote in message
news:iokp8.168237$2q2.13...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> absurd than simply accepting that you cannot fully comprehend your
creator.
> while you consider everyone a victim of religion, I consider you a victim
of
> rationalism.
> all of your science is based on our mysteries.
Where did I say everyone is a victim of religion. I do not think of "god" as
limited to my
comprehension. If there is a "god" this "god" contains at least the sum
total of all knowledge
of "it's" creation. Which is much greater then any knowledge which I might
have. It is easier to use
the phrase "it's what god wants" then to think about one's beliefs
critically. Beliefs that were developed
a long time ago. By men that were vastly inferior in knowledge then
nowadays. Back when people thought the earth was flat,
and women were property, and that bloodletting cured disease and that there
were monsters and dragons, and many other superstions. etc...How easy and
immature to just accept "it's what god wants even though it doesn't make
sense anymore due to our greater knowledge."
then to think, hey maybe these guys that thought this up were wrong, let's
change this. But then, religious indoctrination actively discourages such
thought, and instead wants blind(or at least very myopic) obedience. I
remember many times debating such points, in high school
with the priests and eventually just getting a "because god said so" or "I
believe this because I have faith".
PetePanaro
>he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to do
>their own thinking". ... "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been
>way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should
>mark the end of controversy.² (The Improvement Era, June 1945, page 354).
>
>--
>Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
>www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mormonism is widely considered a pseudo-Christian cult. By definition, a cult
discourages questions on faith.
Whatcha gonna do next? Provide quotes from L Ron Hubbard? David Koresh?
KeithW
jlav...@SPAMameritech.net says...
>
> >
> > yes, and they were created good, but turned bad.
> But god in his infinite wisdon must have known that "satan" would turn
> "bad", or
> even if god didn't know, he allows "satan" to continue to harass,
> taunt,tempt and torment humankind, his beloved
> creation away from him(and also causing untold, unnecessary grief in the
> world), thereby earning a one way trip to the permanent sauna.
My mother knew that I would suffer pain and would someday die. She knew
that I would be harassed by others or even harass others. Even though,
she gave me life. Your mother gave you life.
> Why would
> god allow such a thing to happen? Oh I get it, god works in mysterious ways
> that we can't
> understand, right. The patented excuse for those whose minds can't come up
> with a reasonable
> answer and who won't allow themselves to de-matrix, and to see the forest
> through the trees.
What is so difficult for you to understand? God created perfect beings,
angels and men. Since they were not made as robots, they were given the
ability of choice. The could choose between good and evil. Most angels
chose good. Some chose evil. Men choose evil. Some choose evil to such a
great extent that they question God and dare sit in judgement of Him and
His creation.
Joe
Jason > I now see that you are Agnostic, where I beleived you were Atheist
before.
I do not attempt to pidgeonhole myself. Whatever I may believe, the reality
isn't.
Ex.. I can think of a city, I can look at a map of this city, I can even
read a book about this place
or talk to people who have visited this place(and that is assuming I can
even trust the accuracyof the
people who wrote and talked to me.)
But of all the opinions I can form in my mind of this city, it is not the
city. To know this city
to know all of it, every nook and cranny would be a feat indeed. Even if I
visited this city
and walked around I would still not have a "complete" picture. You might do
everything
I do and still have a very different idea of this place in your mind. And
this is just a small, small
place in a huge physical universe, let alone the realms of spirit,(heaven ?)
To form an opinion
of god that would include what he wants from us humans even to the point of
such detailed things that
are part of the RC dogma is pretty presumptuous.
Since I am human and my knowledge is finite and, my conscience thought is
limited.
So by the act of thinking of what god is I limit what I can accept as god.
What I won't accept
is even more limited people then myself telling me what god "really wants"
from us (RC or any religious dogma).
> I was typing out a really long response to your statements and then I
realized
> that until you accept Gods existance, nothing I can say will help you.
> I recommend you pray that God shows you the way.
>
Do you mean your version of god's existence? Based on a "book" called the
bible.
Again I ask, why do you believe this, because you have faith(which is silly,
because faith is a belief,
so to believe because of your faith is to have a belief because of a
belief)? Did god talk to you
and say this is the truth? And if god did talk to you, how do you know it
was god and
not some devil, or just your own mind. Or did someone tell you when you were
very young
and impressionable that the bible is "the truth".Or were you older and
looking for some order or
reason to it all, and looked to societies "acceptable" panacea, mainstream
religion.
Joe
>
> My mother knew that I would suffer pain and would someday die. She knew
> that I would be harassed by others or even harass others. Even though,
> she gave me life. Your mother gave you life.
My mother certainly wasn't god, and I doubt that yours was either.
> > Why would
> > god allow such a thing to happen? Oh I get it, god works in mysterious
ways
> > that we can't
> > understand, right. The patented excuse for those whose minds can't come
up
> > with a reasonable
> > answer and who won't allow themselves to de-matrix, and to see the
forest
> > through the trees.
>
> What is so difficult for you to understand? God created perfect beings,
> angels and men. Since they were not made as robots, they were given the
> ability of choice. The could choose between good and evil. Most angels
> chose good. Some chose evil. Men choose evil. Some choose evil to such a
> great extent that they question God and dare sit in judgement of Him and
> His creation.
I try not to judge, mostly I just question and can question quite vigorously
at times. Which is not a fault,
but a "god given" talent.
I do not blindly accept "matters of faith" from others. I try to think for
myself.
Joe
> The Bible is a tool or instruction of my faith. The Bible was not written
to
> convince people who God is, but to be used by people who already know who
God
> is.
But how do you know who god is. You can't use the bible as a source because
you
just said the bible is "not written to convince people who god is". You're
left with two
choices either you were told this or god spoke to you.
>
> First the Bible is not the truth in and of itself, God is truth, and the
Church
> is the pillar of truth. The Bible was put together by the Church and meant
to
> be a guide of our faith, but not the sole guide to our faith.
So the church is the pillar of truth and the bible was put together by the
church
and meant to guide faith. Again where does your faith come from.
> Faith is man's response to Grace which is what gives you your very
existance.
> in my seeking truth I found the Catholic church to be the church that
Christ
> founded and I have been growing in my faith through my studies of Theology
and
> Catechesis ever since.
So you get faith from grace, grace is what you are told that god gives you.
So again
your faith is handed to you by mere mortals, fallible men.
So you are growing in your faith through studying theology( faith and
beliefs of other men/women)
So you are saying you have faith due to the faith of others, since faith is
a belief, you believe
because others told you to believe through their writings.
Look at some of the religions that were once popular, like the greek
gods,the
people that believed in them believed in their "faith" just as fervently as
you.
> by the tone of your questions, I doubt you have ever attempted to beleive.
its
> no wonder this all seems like a riddle to you...
> "Faith is an organice experience, if you never ate food, how would have
known
> what it would mean to you?" --Frank Sheed
This is not a riddle to me, I left blind faith behind.
CB
KeithW wrote:
>
> In article
> <45DBD4D44DA65BF4.EA02DC9D8EFED0FB.3DF7E64AD07AF1EE@lp.a
> irnews.net>, thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> > userper wrote:
> > >
> > > Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New Testament.
> > > Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
> > > not a cult.
> >
> > Sure they are.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> > > scandals.
> >
> > But we can judge the rcc.
> > It's a false religion.
>
> According to what authority?
It's called the BIBLE.
Ever heard of it?
> --
--
Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it:
thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite
heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
KeithW
<4822CAF353933D21.60ED96CC...@lp.airnews.net>,
thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> KeithW wrote:
> >
> > In article
> > <45DBD4D44DA65BF4.EA02DC9D8EFED0FB.3DF7E64AD07AF1EE@lp.a
> > irnews.net>, thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > > userper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New Testament.
> > > > Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
> > > > not a cult.
> > >
> > > Sure they are.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> > > > scandals.
> > >
> > > But we can judge the rcc.
> > > It's a false religion.
> >
> > According to what authority?
>
> It's called the BIBLE.
> Ever heard of it?
Oh yes! It is the canon of scripture given to us by the Catholic Church
in 393 and 397AD. It says this:
Ro:14:4: Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own
master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is
able to make him stand.
--
The fallacy of the Sola Scriptura heresy:
"All teachings must be found in the Bible, except
for the teaching that 'all teachings must be found
in the Bible.'"
The Toxic Avenger
"Will Nordmeyer" <wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net> wrote in message
news:3ca371e0$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
>
> "Joe" <jlav...@SPAMameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:lUJo8.2030$d7.6...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent
> sex
> > > scandals.
> >
> this crisis.
> > Those that sit back and do nothing while priests and bishops continue
> their lies,
> > and blame shuffling are part of the problem. If I was still RC I would
> be up in arms
> > about this, doing whatever was necessary to help effect change.
> Whether it was organizing
> > petitions to send to the vatican or organizing a witholding of
> contributions etc... But meekly going along
> > with the program and getting mad at people who point out this abuse
> and saying things like,
> > "all these anti-catholics are picking on us" is pathetic.
> >
> hysteria and bias in the media?
>
> Do you know if they are out organizing petitions, contacting their
> diocese, calling their priests...
Did the RCC suddenly become a democracy and I missed it? The hierarchy of
the RCC couldn't give a rat's ass about what the rank and file of either the
clergy or the laity think about anything and they don't have to.
TA
MOST Roman Catholics are upset about
> this and I know many who ARE doing what they can.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With NINE Servers In California And Texas - The Worlds Uncensored News
Source
>
Will Nordmeyer
"The Toxic Avenger" <fa...@e-mail.com> wrote in message
news:kL2q8.9811$SG2.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Church DOES care about what Catholics have to say.
CB
KeithW wrote:
>
> In article
> <4822CAF353933D21.60ED96CC...@lp.airnews.net>,
> thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> >
> > KeithW wrote:
> > >
> > > In article
> > > <45DBD4D44DA65BF4.EA02DC9D8EFED0FB.3DF7E64AD07AF1EE@lp.a
> > > irnews.net>, thewaythetru...@yahoo.com says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > userper wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New Testament.
> > > > > Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They are
> > > > > not a cult.
> > > >
> > > > Sure they are.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> > > > > scandals.
> > > >
> > > > But we can judge the rcc.
> > > > It's a false religion.
> > >
> > > According to what authority?
> >
> > It's called the BIBLE.
> > Ever heard of it?
>
> Oh yes! It is the canon of scripture given to us by the Catholic Church
> in 393 and 397AD. It says this:
I'm sorry to disappoint but it was provided to us by God through His
apostles.
Nice try though!
KeithW
<8D07C3E76A71A2D0.50C2194B...@lp.airnews.net>,
Pardon me! I was unaware that an apostle had listed the books that we
have in our canon of scripture today. It must have been Saint John, as he
was the last apostle upon earth and wrote the last canonized books.
Please provide a quote I can verify of John listing the books that he
canonized and I will accept it. Until then, I will acknowledge the
authority of the Catholic Church in its canon of 393AD and 397AD.
bam
"CB" <thewaythetru...@yahoo.com> wrote
> I'm sorry to disappoint but it was provided to us by God through His
> apostles.
> Nice try though!
references?
BAM
John Weatherly
there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
John Weatherly
john_wea...@yahoo.com
On 28 Mar 2002 20:02:49 GMT, dawnoft...@aol.com (DawnoftheForest)
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Catholic bashing?
>>From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
>>Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>>
>>I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people. The media is
>>very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if this were
>>another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the rabbi in
>>NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
>
>You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
> Dawn
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
With NINE News Servers In California - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
Paula
john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
> Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
> there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
> little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
>
not allowed, handled improperly.
Paula
> John Weatherly
> john_wea...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> On 28 Mar 2002 20:02:49 GMT, dawnoft...@aol.com (DawnoftheForest)
> wrote:
>
>>> Subject: Re: Catholic bashing?
>>> From: "AJ" zufr...@excite.com
>>> Date: 3/28/02 12:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>> Message-id: <psIo8.459265$pN4.31...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
>>>
>>> I totally agree with you..and not all priests are bad people. The media is
>>> very anti-catholic....and they are really having a great time...if this were
>>> another denomination they wouldn't tolerate it..For instance, the rabbi in
>>> NY who molested his nephew is never heard of again...Interesting!!
>>
>> You heard of it didn't you? I did also.
>> Dawn
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 -
> http://www.uncensored-news.com
> With NINE News Servers In California - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
>
--
CeCe
> in article 82qvaucr3ck3reqdm...@4ax.com, John Weatherly at
> john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
>
> > Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
> > there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
> > little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
> >
>
> not allowed, handled improperly.
>
> Paula
No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would have
access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your desire to
the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
CeCe
---
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.
--Galileo Galilei
Paula
wrote on 4/7/02 10:03 AM:
> Paula wrote:
>
>> in article 82qvaucr3ck3reqdm...@4ax.com, John Weatherly at
>> john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
>>
>>> Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
>>> there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
>>> little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
>>>
>>
>> not allowed, handled improperly.
>>
>> Paula
>
> No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
> worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would
> have
> access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
> molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your
> desire to
> the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
>
> CeCe
>
Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
Again, I restate, this is a terrible thing. It was not 'allowed' and it was
definitely improperly handled.
PetePanaro
>Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
>there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
>little boys and of the "church"
Children = teenagers
Molestors = Homosexuals.
charro
Ask Cardinal Connell or Former Bishop Comisky!
Their silence proves the statement!
Paula wrote in message ...
duke32
wrote:
>No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
>worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would have
>access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
>molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your desire to
>the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
>CeCe
There were clearly some instances where it was swept under the run.
There were cases that were deemed resolved.
And most of all, there were many cases that were allegation only.
duke
*****
One day every tongue
Will confess You are God.
One day every knee will bow.
Still the greatest treasure remains
For those who gladly choose you now.
*****
duke32
wrote:
>Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
You're right - no wheres is it "allowed". Also, many cases are pure
allegation only.
Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and
be stronger for it.
A few really bad apples in a bushel of good apples does not ruin the
whole bushel.
CeCe
> > No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
> > worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would
> > have
> > access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
> > molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your
> > desire to
> > the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
> >
> > CeCe
> >
>
> Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
I see. Your problem is semantics. Our faith does not state that sexual abuses are
'allowed', or 'permitted' if you will, but by turning their backs to what was
happening the bishops most certainly did allow the abuses to continue. They did not
try to stop them, instead they enabled them, permitted them, allowed them, whatever
word you want to use. Surely you must understand this and are only playing words
games when you say the church did not allow the abuses.
> Again, I restate, this is a terrible thing. It was not 'allowed' and it was
> definitely improperly handled.
Again, semantics. The abuses were definitely 'allowed' because of the improper
handling of the matter by the bishops. If the bishops had properly dealt with the
abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all truthfulness that the
abuses were not allowed.
Mcc6050
>Again, semantics. The abuses were definitely 'allowed' because of the
>improper
>handling of the matter by the bishops. If the bishops had properly dealt with
>the
>abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all truthfulness
>that the
>abuses were not allowed.
Cardinal Mahoney, in an interview with the L.A. Times, referred to the "grave
neglect" of bishops (and his brother cardinal, Cardinal Law) in dealing with
predatory priests.
As you've indicated "allow" has several meanings, and Paula and a few others,
apparently are focussing on only one of the several uses. My Merriam-Webster
dictionary includes as a definition:
"to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent", citing the example "allows
the dog to roam". An apt example when considering that Cardinal Law *allowed*
Geoghan to continue working with children.
Mac
Bruce LaMore
CeCe <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid> wrote in message
news:3CB0DB1B...@erols.com...
The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow up.
Bruce
dvs519
>On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:14:44 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
>
>You're right - no wheres is it "allowed". Also, many cases are pure
>allegation only.
>
Which one of the "Thou shall nots" does it come under? Remember, all
the commandments are in the negative.
>Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and
>be stronger for it.
No one likes to see it happen. But a few are standing up against this.
Sort of like in Germany in World War II. Very few complained when
their neighbors were taken away and gassed. And they said the Germans
would be the master race.
Don't be an ostrich with your head in the sand and your butt up in the
air. Sorry, I forgot that is our favorite position.
====================
Dave by the Beach
Redondo Beach
Southern California
dvs519
wrote:
>Paula wrote:
>
>> in article 82qvaucr3ck3reqdm...@4ax.com, John Weatherly at
>> john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
>>
>> > Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
>> > there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
>> > little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
>> >
>>
>> not allowed, handled improperly.
>>
>> Paula
>
>No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
>worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would have
>access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
>molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your desire to
>the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
>
>CeCe
I agree. Anyone else gets FIRED. They don't get another chance to do
IT again and again and again.
Even if you by their crap that they went to counseling and the
"counselor" said they were cured and they molested again. Anybody with
a conscience would stop it then and there. What did the bishops and
cardinals do? Let them do it again somewhere else.
Mcc6050
>If the bishops had properly dealt
>with the
>> abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
>truthfulness that the
>> abuses were not allowed.
>The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow up.
I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex, always
try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is absolutely
correct.
Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are several):
"to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent", as in the example provided
"allow the dog to roam".
There is no doubt (among reasonable people) that Cardinal Law et al *allowed*
some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to restrain
them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even Cardinal
Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
Mac
CeCe
> Bruce LaMore wrote:
>
> >The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow up.
>
> I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex, always
> try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is absolutely
> correct.
Thanks Mac. I can't imagine why Bruce thinks I'm acting hysterically just for
stating the obvious truth. I think the reason he can't resist insulting me is
because he knows I have him killfiled and usually don't see his barbs. I think that
pretty cowardly of him, but that's Bruce for ya.
> Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are several):
>
> "to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent", as in the example provided
> "allow the dog to roam".
>
> There is no doubt (among reasonable people) that Cardinal Law et al *allowed*
> some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to restrain
> them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even Cardinal
> Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
You are right of course. Some people are just happy living in their world of denial
I guess.
dvs519
Some were over 18.
Some were females.
justc...@2by2.net
>
> > > No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it and
> > > worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would
> > > have
> > > access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history of
> > > molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your
> > > desire to
> > > the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
> > >
> > > CeCe
> > >
> >
> > Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
>
> I see. Your problem is semantics. Our faith does not state that sexual abuses are
> 'allowed', or 'permitted' if you will, but by turning their backs to what was
> happening the bishops most certainly did allow the abuses to continue. They did not
> try to stop them, instead they enabled them, permitted them, allowed them, whatever
> word you want to use. Surely you must understand this and are only playing words
> games when you say the church did not allow the abuses.
>
> > Again, I restate, this is a terrible thing. It was not 'allowed' and it was
> > definitely improperly handled.
>
> Again, semantics. The abuses were definitely 'allowed' because of the improper
> handling of the matter by the bishops. If the bishops had properly dealt with the
> abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all truthfulness that the
> abuses were not allowed.
I see. Your problem is semantics. The CHURCH did not allow the
abuses. The human beings within the church made horrible and
heartbreaking mistakes. It appears you've done very little research
regarding this subject. The fact is, the bishops in question sent the
priests to counseling. When this happened some 20 years ago, how were
the bishops to know that the priest(s) were unable to be cured of
pedophilia? For this there is no cure. The bishops were not fortune
tellers and had no idea the priests were not cured of this problem.
Again, human beings made the heartbreaking mistakes, NOT THE
CHURCH.
duke32
>>>Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
>>You're right - no wheres is it "allowed". Also, many cases are pure
>>allegation only.
>Which one of the "Thou shall nots" does it come under? Remember, all
>the commandments are in the negative.
No. 11, ds, is a positive statement, but you know that one already.
Mat7:21. I've reminded you enough of it.
>>Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and
>>be stronger for it.
>No one likes to see it happen. But a few are standing up against this.
>Sort of like in Germany in World War II. Very few complained when
>their neighbors were taken away and gassed. And they said the Germans
>would be the master race.
A whole lot of people are standing up against it.
>Don't be an ostrich with your head in the sand and your butt up in the
>air. Sorry, I forgot that is our favorite position.
His name is dave snowden.
>====================
>Dave by the Beach
>Redondo Beach
>Southern California
Everybody need to know how dave snowden thinks.
duke32
wrote:
>Thanks Mac. I can't imagine why Bruce thinks I'm acting hysterically just for
>stating the obvious truth. I think the reason he can't resist insulting me is
>because he knows I have him killfiled and usually don't see his barbs.
It appears to me you kill file everybody that disagrees with you.
If you did't hide behind your kill file, you would see what he says
about you.
> I think that
>pretty cowardly of him, but that's Bruce for ya.
Dump the kill file and try discussion for a change.
Paula
mcc...@aol.com wrote on 4/7/02 9:18 PM:
use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word.
The use of the word 'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think
this is no big deal.. and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.
Paula
--
Monica
<snip>
<use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word. The use of the word
'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think this is no big deal..
and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.>
You are not alone Paula. :)
Monica
"Our greatest vision comes from our heart.
It allows us to see everything, even if we are blind."
Mcc6050
Earlier I wrote:
>There is no doubt (among reasonable people) that Cardinal Law et al *allowed*
>> some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to
>restrain
>> them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even
>> Cardinal
>> Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
>use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word.
>The use of the word 'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think
>this is no big deal.. and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.
I'm sorry that you are "insulted" by the use of the word "allow". The word
fits quite well as a characterization of the "grave neglect" of some prelates
in getting the predatory priests away from young people.
It's interesting, and puzzling, that you prefer the word "aided". As critical
as I am of the negligence of some prelates, I'd never claim that any of them
*assisted* the predators. My Merriam-Webster defines "aid" as:
1. to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end;
2. a subsidy granted to the king by the English parliament until the 18th
century;
3. help given--specif. tangible means of assistance (as money or supplies);
4. an assisting person or group (see aide);
5. something by which assistance is given.
"Aid" implies *intentional* action in the furtherance of some goal. I hope
you agree that Cardinal Law et al had no intention that the various predators
molest more children.
Using "enable" is closer to what IMO is the negligent behavior of some
prelates. Again, Merriam-Webster defines "enable":
1. a. to provide with the means or training (example: enables men to earn a
living)
b. to make possible, practical, or easy;
2. to give legal power , capacity, or sanction to (example: legislation
enabling the admission of a state).
There also seems to be an element of intentionality in the word "enable" but
definition 1 b could fit. The undernote of intentionality for me is
problematic, tho.
I hope this discussion isn't coming across as a quibble over a few words. In a
sense, the words used are personal judgements of the people being discussed.
Personally, I wouldn't attribute the intention of furthering or making easier
the molestation of children to any prelate I've read about.
Mac
Mcc6050
><use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word. The use of the word
>'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think this is no big deal..
>and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.>
>
>You are not alone Paula. :)
I posted a response to Paula indicating that "aided" implies the *intention* of
the prelate to assist a predatory priest in gaining more victims (based on
definitions in Merriam-Webster). "Enabled" has the same intentionality. I am
sure that neither she nor you means to imply that the various prelates
*intended* to help predatory priests in their predations. Check your
dictionary. Words have meanings and nuance; what you and Paula prefer are
words that indicate a prelate *intended* to help a predator prey on victims.
As critical as I am of the hierarchy in this matter, I'd never assert that any
of them *intended* to help the predators in continuing their predations.
"Allow" implies neglect (in fact, "neglect" is part of the definition), not
intentionality.
I for one will continue to use "allow" as an indicator of the "grave neglect"
(Cardinal Mahoney's characterization) of some prelates. Unless or until it's
proven that Cardinal Law et al said, in words to the effect "Go, Father, I am
assigning you to a new parish where you will find many young people. I
support, aid, and assist you in your quest".
The post I made hasn't turned up yet on my server. If it doesn't appear, I'll
repost. In the meantime, I do suggest that you check a dictionary to sort out
the meanings and implications of the 3 words.
Mac
Paula
dvs...@earthlink.net wrote on 4/7/02 9:03 PM:
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:03:50 -0400, CeCe <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Paula wrote:
>>
>>> in article 82qvaucr3ck3reqdm...@4ax.com, John Weatherly at
>>> john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
>>>
>>>> Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
>>>> there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
>>>> little boys and of the "church" allowing it and looking the other way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> not allowed, handled improperly.
>>>
>>> Paula
>>
>> No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop it
>> and
>> worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they would
>> have
>> access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a history
>> of
>> molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your
>> desire to
>> the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
>>
>> CeCe
>
> I agree. Anyone else gets FIRED. They don't get another chance to do
> IT again and again and again.
>
That is not a 'truth', btw.
Paula
Bruce LaMore
Mcc6050 <mcc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020407221808...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> Bruce LaMore wrote:
>
> >If the bishops had properly dealt
> >with the
> >> abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
> >truthfulness that the
> >> abuses were not allowed.
>
> >The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow up.
>
> I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex,
always
> try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is
absolutely
> correct.
Your opinion. Naturally, your opinion is incorrect.
>
> Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are
several):
More semantics.
>
> "to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent", as in the example
provided
> "allow the dog to roam".
>
> There is no doubt (among reasonable people) that Cardinal Law et al
*allowed*
> some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to
restrain
> them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even
Cardinal
> Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
>
> Mac
There is the key phrase. "Reasonable people". You don't fit into the
category reasonable people and naturally, you believe that Cardinal law
knowingly and approvingly allowed the acts.
Reasonable people, disagree with you.
Bruce
Bruce LaMore
CeCe <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid> wrote in message
> Mcc6050 wrote:
>
> > Bruce LaMore wrote:
> >
> > >The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow
up.
> >
> > I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex,
always
> > try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is
absolutely
> > correct.
>
> Thanks Mac. I can't imagine why Bruce thinks I'm acting hysterically just
for
> stating the obvious truth.
What a hysterical comment.
I think the reason he can't resist insulting me is
> because he knows I have him killfiled and usually don't see his barbs. I
think that
> pretty cowardly of him, but that's Bruce for ya.
LOL!!! You read them all the time and cannot resist throwing the barbs my
way and pleading innocent via the killfile. Please, CeCe, your fooling no
one.
>
> > Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are
several):
> >
> > "to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent", as in the example
provided
> > "allow the dog to roam".
> >
> > There is no doubt (among reasonable people) that Cardinal Law et al
*allowed*
> > some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to
restrain
> > them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even
Cardinal
> > Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
>
> You are right of course. Some people are just happy living in their world
of denial
> I guess.
>
> CeCe
Some people are just happy. Others, like CeCe, are not.
Bruce
Patti Ambrose
Christ started "a" church---- founded on Peter, the rock---- this was the
catholic church. If this church is WRONG then Christ was WRONG
because this was HIS creation. Was Christ wrong? No, He is NEVER wrong.
However, when humans become involved in anything, mistakes/problems occur.
If Christ wanted to "recreate" His church, He wouldn't have done it the way
the protestants have done it. (The word is actually pronounced with the
accent on the second syllable, NOT the first.) The church would have been
recreated with a holy profit- NOT with someone with the sinful nature of
Luther, Calvin, etc. Let's think about this: When Jimmy Swaggart strayed,
he was kicked out of his church, but soon started his own sect, and was
right back on TV. NO ONE said- Hey, this entire line of the protestant
faith (Baptist?) is bad, let's destroy them! NO, they said that Jimmy
erred, after all he's only human. He's wonderful, let's give him and his
repentant heart another chance. But the catholic church? Heck, let's just
get rid of them all, that's what the popular culture/media/ignorant people
say about us. Why? Well, let's just say that satan wants to win at all
costs, and inspires weak people to do his work. I figure that, if no one is
complaining, you're on the right track. Since so many people are
complaining and finding fault, we (catholics) must be on the right track.
We're keeping satan busy. Now, this doesn't justify the behavior of a few
priests, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. ppaya
"userper" <use...@naxs.com> wrote in message
news:DADo8.40937$cB5....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> Catholics after all created the Nicene Creed and produced the New
Testament.
> Yet fundamentalist, many who are Bible illiterate, call them cults. They
are
> not a cult.
>
> We shouldn't judge the vast number of good Catholic people by recent sex
> scandals.
>
> See
>
> http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/cath_attacked.htm
> Catholic faith under attack by fundamentalists.
>
>
> http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/bob_jones/bob_jones.htm
> Bob Jones III is a disgrace to Jesus. He comes to our town and declares
the
> Bible is "inlolerant."
>
>
>
>
>
>
Paula
mcc...@aol.com wrote on 4/8/02 4:30 PM:
Mac, if you want to use dictioneries, go down to the public library and use
the really big ones. Words that are used regarding this are important
because some words used and the phrases created cast blame on many innocent
people. And I am certain that you don't wish for that to be done, do you?
I do not believe anyone 'allowed', as in 'gave permission', for anyone to
harm another individual. You can delve into definitions all you wish,
however, the use of this particular word is a slanderous one.
Would you be disappointed should Law be found innocent based on 'common
knowledge'? Somewhere in this thread it was brought up that there was a
time when it was believed that this particular problem was 'curable'. So,
there is this little problem of blaming someone for making decisions based
on 'bad medicine/science', and that is not exactly their fault, is it?
I ask that those who discuss this issue do so objectively and without
personal bias. I ask that those who discuss this issue to not slander by
use of generalizations. I ask that those who discuss this
realize that no one 'supports' these grave errors. I ask that those who
discuss this issue to let the law do its job. And, I ask that those who
discuss this issue remember that hindsight is always 20/20.
Be careful using that 'evil' reference book, using it i proved that athiesm
is a religion.... hehehe.
Paula
Bruce LaMore
Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:B8D7BA4A.267E%spoc...@bellsouth.net...
(snipped for brevity)
>
> I ask that those who discuss this issue do so objectively and without
> personal bias. I ask that those who discuss this issue to not slander by
> use of generalizations.
(snip)
And therein lies the problem, Paula. Our anti-Catholic friends are carrying
around a lack of objectivity and lots of personal bias.
--
Bruce
"Soli Deo gloria"
Jeff Shirton
news:3cb0ccc2...@news.earthlink.net...
> Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and
> be stronger for it.
>
> A few really bad apples in a bushel of good apples does not ruin the
> whole bushel.
1Co 5:6 Your boasting is not appropriate.
Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
Gal 5:9 A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.
You have a rather *bizarre* interpretive technique, to say the least.
> duke
--
Jeff Shirton
jshirton at cogeco dot ca
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
He didn't sound like a baseball player... He said things like,
"Nevertheless", and "if, in fact." - Dan Quisenberry on Ted Simmons
Mcc6050
Earlier I wrote:
>I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex,
>always
>> try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is
>absolutely
>> correct.
>Your opinion. Naturally, your opinion is incorrect.
IMO, you stalk CeCe in this ng, posting witless jibes.
In Merriam-Webster definition, posted earlier, "allow" means what CeCe
indicated it meant. Standard English usage. For the educated, anyway. Not a
personal opinion.
>Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are
>several):
>
>More semantics.
It's hard to tell if you're just stubbornly defensive or don't understand
English usage. There's nothing "semantic" about definitions of words....words
having meaning and nuance in standard English. Look up "allow" in a good
dictionary and educate yourself. Or since you won't, I've reposted the
relevant definition below. Try...really try....to understand it. You can't
possibly be as stupid as you post or you'd never have learned to tie your shoe
laces.
>There is the key phrase. "Reasonable people". You don't fit into the
>category reasonable people and naturally, you believe that Cardinal law
>knowingly and approvingly allowed the acts.
I'll say right out: you are an uneducated buffoon or worse: you seem not to
have scruples about posting untruthful statements or smears. Nowhere have I
said, hinted, implied, asserted, wondered, speculated whether Cardinal Law et
al "knowingly and approvingly" allowed the specific acts of child molestation.
Read that again, fool. Then read my other posts. I have said, enough times
for even someone as dense as you to absorb, that thru "grave neglect" Cardinal
Law et al "allowed" the predatory priests to continue their predations.
Merriam-Webster:
"Allow....to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent."
To go thru this baby step by baby step for you, Cardinal Law knew that Geoghan
and others were child abusers. No controversy about that. He did not take
action to prevent them from having contact with young people. In fact, he
assigned them to new parishes where their practices were unknown. He
neglected to inform their pastors that they were child abusers. He set them
loose, in other words. Thru this "grave neglect" he allowed (see definition
above, read it several times) those predators to continue their predations.
I'll look forward to your "educated" response to Paula Mackel and Monica that
Cardinal Law et al "aided" and "enabled" predatory priests to prey on young
people. And you can read my response to them. If you can read.
Mac
Mcc6050
>I do not believe anyone 'allowed', as in 'gave permission', for anyone to
>harm another individual. You can delve into definitions all you wish,
>however, the use of this particular word is a slanderous one.
Believe it if you wish. You've been given the relevant definition and your not
understanding it is your problem and your limitation. The "giving permission"
is NOT the definition I posted here.
Read the definition in a dictionary if you don't believe the definition I
posted. You obviously are careless in English usage, particularly in
expressing yourself when you say that Law et al "aided" predatory priests.
That word means that he actively assisted the predators in their predations.
Did you read the Merriam-Webster definition posted? Providing something
useful to achieve an end? In other words, your use of "aided" conveys that Law
et al *assisted* the predators in their goal of predation.... like in "aiding
and abetting" the commission of a crime, a prosecutable crime itself.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Mac
bbaker
"PetePanaro" <petep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020407131323...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> >
> >Why the world is so angry with the Roman Catholic religion is that
> >there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
> >little boys and of the "church"
>
and you have support for this?
>
> Molestors = Homosexuals.
Wrong.
Molesters = both pedophiles, and rapists.
bbaker
"charro" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:hY1s8.5892$e5.3...@news.indigo.ie...
> The Catholic Church ALLOWED child rapings to continue!
> Ask Cardinal Connell or Former Bishop Comisky!
>
> Their silence proves the statement!
>
>
> Paula wrote in message ...
> >in article 3CB05FD6...@erols.com, CeCe at c_c...@lycos.cominvalid
> >wrote on 4/7/02 10:03 AM:
> >
> >> Paula wrote:
> >>
> >>> in article 82qvaucr3ck3reqdm...@4ax.com, John Weatherly
at
> >>> john_wea...@yahoo.com wrote on 4/7/02 1:40 AM:
> >>>
> >>>> there is now an established 20+-year history of priests molesting
way.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> not allowed, handled improperly.
> >>>
> >>> Paula
> >>
> >> No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to stop
> it and
> >> worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they
> would
> >> have
> >> access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a
> history of
> >> molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite
your
> >> desire to
> >> the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even
try.
> >>
> >> CeCe
> >>
> >
> >
was definitely improperly handled.
That's like saying Hitler, and his senior staff, improperly handled the
"Jewish Problem", because they actually DIDN'T, personally, kill any Jews!
They just "allowed it to happen!"
bbaker
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:03:50 -0400, CeCe <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid>
> wrote:
>
it and
> >worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where they
would have
> >access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a
history of
> >molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite your
desire to
> >the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even try.
> >CeCe
>
were cases that were deemed resolved.
The situation was "deemed resolved" when they shipped the criminal to
another parish!
>
> And most of all, there were many cases that were allegation only.
First, allegations come before trials.
Second, as far as I have seen, no false allegations have surfaced - and a
vast amount of evidence against the individuals, and the cadre, HAS been
found!
Third .. those playing down the importance of this crime (sin) against the
innocent are just as sick as those who commited the crime!
bbaker
It doesn't, but there ARE things, in your faith, about trust, honor, love,
humility, law, justice, protecting the innocent,
sexual conduct etc. etc. etc..
It is NOT a religion on trial here, it is the corrupt religious system and
it's members.
>
> You're right - no wheres is it "allowed". Also, many cases are pure
allegation only.
Which means Al Capone, Pol Pot and Adolph Hitler are inocent because there
were only allegations?
>
> Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and be
stronger for it.
Not likely!
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" in not merely a
catchphrase!
Power only flows one way, in the RCC .. fromt he top down.
As long as NO ONE is held responsible to those below them, there is no
reason for them to fix the problem.
Also, at the core of this (and the RCC actions during WW II) is the fact
that the RCC political system exists for only one reason .. to protect the
RCC AT ALL COSTS!
>
> A few really bad apples in a bushel of good apples does not ruin the whole
bushel.
But when the barrel is rotten, the whole pile of shit stinks.
bbaker
"dvs519" <dvs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:15u1bucgmp11i0hvt...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 22:50:41 GMT, duk...@earthlink.net (duke32) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 10:14:44 -0500, Paula <spoc...@bellsouth.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Where in our faith does it state that this is 'allowed'?
> >
> >You're right - no wheres is it "allowed". Also, many cases are pure
> >allegation only.
> >
>
> Which one of the "Thou shall nots" does it come under? Remember, all
> the commandments are in the negative.
"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."
The reason for celebacy, humility and poverty is to enforce this concept -
tht nothing comes before god.
These priests put their own sexual desires first; not only ahead of their
religon and vows, but ahead of the safety of the innocent victims.
Those invoved in the coverup put thier own political/religious organization
first - again, ahead of the teaching of the bible, thier religon, and the
innocent victims!
>
> >Like you, I hate to see the problem, but the church will recover and
> >be stronger for it.
>
> No one likes to see it happen. But a few are standing up against this.
> Sort of like in Germany in World War II. Very few complained when
> their neighbors were taken away and gassed. And they said the Germans
> would be the master race.
Many are standing up to this ONLY because the press has brought it to light!
Others are merely making excuses, and downplaying the whole event because
they see the RCC political organization as more important than any victims,
or crimes it's member may have done.
bbaker
> CeCe wrote:
>
> >Again, semantics. The abuses were definitely 'allowed' because of the
> >improper
with
> >the
> >abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
truthfulness
> >that the
> >abuses were not allowed.
>
"grave neglect" of bishops (and his >brother cardinal, Cardinal Law) in
dealing with
> predatory priests.
That's just more word games.
Rather than saying they did something wrong, he's saying they didn't do the
right thing.
It's NOT the same!
They did something WRONG!
bbaker
"Bruce LaMore" <bkl...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3cb0e...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
> CeCe <c_c...@lycos.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > Paula wrote:
> >
> > > > No Paula, you are mistaken. They did allow it. They did nothing to
> stop it and
> > > > worse, they continually placed the perpetrators in positions where
> they would
> > > > have
> > > > access to children with the full knowledge that those priests had a
> history of
> > > > molestation. They did allow it. That's a fact and one that, despite
> your
> > > > desire to
> > > > the contrary, you cannot deny. I can't understand why you would even
> try.
> > > >
> > > > CeCe
> > > >
> > >
> >
> abuses are
> > 'allowed', or 'permitted' if you will, but by turning their backs to
what
> was
> > happening the bishops most certainly did allow the abuses to continue.
> They did not
> > try to stop them, instead they enabled them, permitted them, allowed
them,
> whatever
> > word you want to use. Surely you must understand this and are only
playing
> words
> > games when you say the church did not allow the abuses.
> >
it
> was
> > > definitely improperly handled.
> >
> improper
> > handling of the matter by the bishops. If the bishops had properly dealt
> with the
> > abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
> truthfulness that the
> > abuses were not allowed.
> >
>
> The one using semantics is you, CeCe. Stop acting hysterical. Grow up.
>
His definitive post seems one hell of a lot more mature than your foaming at
the mouth comment!
bbaker
> Bruce LaMore wrote:
>
> >If the bishops had properly dealt
> >with the
> >> abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
> >truthfulness that the
> >> abuses were not allowed.
>
>
always
> try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is
absolutely
> correct.
>
several):
>
provided
> "allow the dog to roam".
>
*allowed*
> some predatory priests to continue their predations by neglecting to
restrain
> them or preventing them from having easy access to young people. Even
Cardinal
> Mahoney characterized the behavior of such prelates as "grave neglect".
>
"allowed" applies to the past tense.
When nothing was done AFTER the facts were known - up to and including
sending the priest to other parishes, that's called aiding and abetting!
That's not merely semantics, that's the law!
bbaker
"Monica" <renona...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020408163933...@mb-mv.aol.com...
> On 4/8/02 Message-id: B8D762D5.25B2%spoc...@bellsouth.net Paula wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> <use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word. The use of the
word
> 'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think this is no big
deal..
> and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.>
>
> You are not alone Paula. :)
>
> Monica
Sadly, it seems as though some catholics are more upset by the furor cause
by these crimes, than they are about the crimes themselves.
bbaker
> Monica wrote:
>
> ><use the word 'enabled', or 'aided', or any other word. The use of the
word
> >'allow' creates an impication that the catholics think this is no big
deal..
> >and, I, for one, am insulted by the terminology.>
> >
> >You are not alone Paula. :)
>
> I posted a response to Paula indicating that "aided" implies the
*intention* of
> the prelate to assist a predatory priest in gaining more victims (based on
> definitions in Merriam-Webster). "Enabled" has the same intentionality.
I am
> sure that neither she nor you means to imply that the various prelates
> *intended* to help predatory priests in their predations. Check your
> dictionary. Words have meanings and nuance; what you and Paula prefer
are
> words that indicate a prelate *intended* to help a predator prey on
victims.
> As critical as I am of the hierarchy in this matter, I'd never assert that
any
> of them *intended* to help the predators in continuing their predations.
> "Allow" implies neglect (in fact, "neglect" is part of the definition),
not
> intentionality.
You're kidding, I hope!
That would be the same as firing a rifle into a crowd, and saying I never
really intended to kill anyone.
The person making that claim is either very VERY stupid, to not know what
would happen, or lying through their teeth - they did know, but didn't care.
It may give you comfort to claim the first, but, in a court of law, such
graven ignorance is no excuse!
It is not saying very much, either, about the real intelligence, wisdom,
integrity and honor of the cadre that are supposed to be your spiritual and
moral leaders.
bbaker
I don;t know about this particular person, BUT .. if he knew about the abuse
and either did nothing, allowed the priest continued contact with victims,
or just shipped him off to another parish to continue the same predatory
behavior, then Law DID knowingly aid and abet in the acts!
bbaker
<justc...@2by2.net> wrote in message
news:677453cd.02040...@posting.google.com...
with the
> > abuses they would have been stopped. Then you could say in all
truthfulness that the
> > abuses were not allowed.
>
> abuses. The human beings within the church made horrible and
> heartbreaking mistakes. It appears you've done very little research
> regarding this subject. The fact is, the bishops in question sent the
> priests to counseling. When this happened some 20 years ago, how were
> the bishops to know that the priest(s) were unable to be cured of
> pedophilia? For this there is no cure. The bishops were not fortune
> tellers and had no idea the priests were not cured of this problem.
> Again, human beings made the heartbreaking mistakes, NOT THE
> CHURCH.
Only if you think "The Church" is the RCC political organization based in
Rome.
Mathew:
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona:
for flesh and blood
hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Catholics like to believe this means the RCC .... but it means the BELIEF is
the church - not a building or political organization.
I "LOVE" the "heartbreaking mistakes"!!!
Albert DiSalvo just made some "Heartbreaking mistakes".
Jim Jones just made some "Heartbreaking mistakes".
David Burkowitz just made some "Heartbreaking mistakes".
Ted Bundy just made some "Heartbreaking mistakes".
Jeffrey Dhamer just made some "Heartbreaking mistakes".
bbaker
"Patti Ambrose" <damb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XXrs8.1336$CA6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I'm new here, so might be repeating something, but....
>
> Christ started "a" church---- founded on Peter, the rock---- this was
the
> catholic church. If this church is WRONG then Christ was WRONG
> because this was HIS creation.
It is ONLY a Catholic opinion, based on a biased distortion of the
communications between Jesus and Peter.
The "Roman Catholic" church did not even come into existence until several
hundred years AFTER christ.
Others take the communication to mean that Jesus was basing his "church" on
the belief in HIM being the son of god ... that belief, being the rock!
bam
"bbaker" <bba...@aol.net> wrote
> 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the
> living God.
> 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona:
> for flesh and blood
> hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
> 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
> will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
>
> Catholics like to believe this means the RCC .... but it means the BELIEF
is
> the church - not a building or political organization.
Says who?
BAM
Bruce LaMore
> Bruce LaMore wrote:
>
> Earlier I wrote:
>
> >I don't quite understand why you automatically, in a knee jerk reflex,
> >always
> >> try to shoot a barb at CeCe. In this discussion of "allow" she is
> >absolutely
> >> correct.
>
> >Your opinion. Naturally, your opinion is incorrect.
>
> IMO, you stalk CeCe in this ng, posting witless jibes.
Can't pull the wool over your eyes. Your much too clever for me.
>
> In Merriam-Webster definition, posted earlier, "allow" means what CeCe
> indicated it meant. Standard English usage. For the educated, anyway.
Not a
> personal opinion.
Merriam-Webster's definition means what it means. What CeCe and you
hysterically imply, is that the bishops knowingly and approvingly "allowed"
the scandal to continue. Nothing could be further from the proof.
>
> >Merriam-Webster has as one definition of "allow" (for which there are
> >several):
> >
> >More semantics.
>
> It's hard to tell if you're just stubbornly defensive or don't understand
> English usage. There's nothing "semantic" about definitions of
words....words
> having meaning and nuance in standard English. Look up "allow" in a good
> dictionary and educate yourself. Or since you won't, I've reposted the
> relevant definition below. Try...really try....to understand it. You
can't
> possibly be as stupid as you post or you'd never have learned to tie your
shoe
> laces.
>
I understand very well, thanks. I understand your dislike of the Church and
your satisfaction of the scandal. I can tell by your last comments that
your losing the argument and your dislike is being to show.
> >There is the key phrase. "Reasonable people". You don't fit into the
> >category reasonable people and naturally, you believe that Cardinal law
> >knowingly and approvingly allowed the acts.
>
> I'll say right out: you are an uneducated buffoon or worse: you seem not
to
> have scruples about posting untruthful statements or smears.
Your really do need to control yourself.
Nowhere have I
> said, hinted, implied, asserted, wondered, speculated whether Cardinal Law
et
> al "knowingly and approvingly" allowed the specific acts of child
molestation.
> Read that again, fool. Then read my other posts. I have said, enough
times
> for even someone as dense as you to absorb, that thru "grave neglect"
Cardinal
> Law et al "allowed" the predatory priests to continue their predations.
>
No, you didn't directly imply it. But the implication was there.
> Merriam-Webster:
>
> "Allow....to forebear or neglect to restrain or prevent."
>
> To go thru this baby step by baby step for you, Cardinal Law knew that
Geoghan
> and others were child abusers. No controversy about that. He did not
take
> action to prevent them from having contact with young people. In fact, he
> assigned them to new parishes where their practices were unknown. He
> neglected to inform their pastors that they were child abusers. He set
them
> loose, in other words. Thru this "grave neglect" he allowed (see
definition
> above, read it several times) those predators to continue their
predations.
>
> I'll look forward to your "educated" response to Paula Mackel and Monica
that
> Cardinal Law et al "aided" and "enabled" predatory priests to prey on
young
> people.
There is the implication **again**. Were you lying earlier when you said
you never implied that? Or are you lying now?
And you can read my response to them. If you can read.
>
> Mac
You need to control that anger, MAC
Bruce
bfm
> > Christ started "a" church---- founded on Peter, the rock---- this was
> the
> > catholic church. If this church is WRONG then Christ was WRONG
> > because this was HIS creation.
>
> It is ONLY a Catholic opinion, based on a biased distortion of the
> communications between Jesus and Peter.
>
> The "Roman Catholic" church did not even come into existence until several
> hundred years AFTER christ.
The Roman Catholic Church has been in existance since 33AD.
> Others take the communication to mean that Jesus was basing his "church" on
> the belief in HIM being the son of god ... that belief, being the rock!
It's those others that have an false interpretation "based on a biased
distortion of the communications between Jesus and Peter"
The Catholic interpretation is the correct one.
Mcc6050
>IMO, you stalk CeCe in this ng, posting witless jibes.
>
>Can't pull the wool over your eyes. Your much too clever for me.
Actually, that's quite true. But I am in a very large majority of people who
are indeed "too clever for" you.
>Merriam-Webster's definition means what it means. What CeCe and you
>hysterically imply, is that the bishops knowingly and approvingly "allowed"
>the scandal to continue. Nothing could be further from the proof.
You're fabricating, making up, the allegation that CeCe and I believe the
bishops "knowingly and approvingly" allowed the predatory priests to continue
their predations. You're making that allegation up out of whole cloth. I
think "lying" is the word that best describes your posting behavior here. In
no post of mine (or CeCe's, as I recall her posts) is there any statement,
implication, suspicion, speculation, that any of the negligent bishops
"knowingly and approvingly" allowed the priests to further molest young people.
You may disdain dictionaries but you have a very obvious need to often consult
one.
You also have a very obvious need to examine your unethical posting behavior.
You fabricate whatever suits your wish, deliberately distort what people post.
You knowingly and <self> approvingly lie in some of your posts.
Mac