The Catholic Church’s grim history of ignoring priestly pedophilia

Mattb

unread,

Oct 3, 2022, 1:38:42 PM10/3/22

to

The Catholic Church’s grim history of ignoring priestly pedophilia –
and silencing would-be whistleblowers

Widespread public shock followed the recent release of the
Pennsylvania grand jury report that identified more than 1,000 child
victims of clergy sexual abuse. In fact, as I know through my
research, the Vatican and its American bishops have known about the
problem of priestly pedophilia since at least the 1950s. And the
Church has consistently silenced would-be whistleblowers from within
its own ranks.

In the memory of many Americans, the only comparable scandal was in
Massachusetts, where, in 2002, the Boston Globe published more than
600 articles about abuses under the administration of Cardinal Bernard
Law. That investigation was immortalized in the 2015 award-winning
film, “Spotlight.”

What many Americans don’t remember, however, are other similar
scandals, some even more dramatic and national in scope.

Doubling down on secrecy

While the problem of priestly pedophilia might be centuries old, the
modern paper trail began only after World War II, when “treatment
centers” appeared for rehabilitating abusive priests. Instead of
increased transparency, bishops, at the same time, developed methods
for denying and hiding allegations of child sexual abuse.

During the 1950s and 1960s, bishops from around the U.S. began
referring abusive priests to church-run medical centers, so that they
could receive evaluation and care without disclosing their crimes to
independent clinicians.

https://theconversation.com/the-catholic-churchs-grim-history-of-ignoring-priestly-pedophilia-and-silencing-would-be-whistleblowers-102387

What does this say aboutthe core values of the RCC and have they
changed?

Would you trust your kids with the RCC?

P+Barker

unread,

Oct 3, 2022, 5:35:32 PM10/3/22

to

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 10:38:39 -0700, Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The Catholic Church’s grim history of ignoring priestly pedophilia –
>and silencing would-be whistleblowers
>Widespread public shock followed the recent release of the
>Pennsylvania grand jury report that identified more than 1,000 child
>victims of clergy sexual abuse

The findings of the Phila Grand Jury were BULL SHIT.
As I've told you many times.
Even back to 2011.
Stop yer whining.

Your stupid grand jury also claimed there were 37 active duty child
abuser priests in Philadelphia.
Let's look at those 37 priests.

>
> Father Stanley Gana 79

Gana was removed from the ministry in 2002 and totally defrocked in
2006. Rev. Stanley Gana became a priest in 1970 and was defrocked
3/21/2006. He was also a chaplain of the Boy Scouts of America. Rev.
Stanley, who was accused in the grand-jury report of raping and
molesting "countless boys in a succession of Philadelphia Archdiocese
parishes," had been living in central Florida in 2005 and 2006 with a
friend who was unaware of the grand-jury's findings, the Orlando
Sentinel reported last August. postedon Friday, April 04, 2008

> Father Raymond Leneweaver 101
> By the time Fr. Leneweaver was transferred for the fourth time, the
> Archdiocese Chancellor, Francis J. Statkus, noted in a September 1980
> letter that "he was appointed to this area of the diocese because it is
> one of the few remaining areas where his scandalous action may not be
> known."

Father Leneweaver, then a teacher at Cardinal O'Hara High School as a
result of his reassignment in 1966, claimed that his molestation of
Jeffrey for more than two years had been a temporary lapse. He blamed
depression following his first assignment, where he had lived with an
alcoholic priest and had had to minister to "the Negroes." Father
Leneweaver also claimed that his parents had died shortly before he
began molesting Jeffrey. The priest often used his parents - who, in
fact, were not dead in 1968 - to explain the "difficulties" in his
life. Archdiocese officials did not report Fr. Leneweaver's criminal
abuse of multiple minors to the police. Nor did they initiate
proceedings to remove Fr. Leneweaver from the priesthood. Instead, on
May 7, 1975, Cardinal Krol granted Fr. Leneweaver leave to take care
of his still-alive parents in Florida and to seek treatment there.
In December 1980, he asked for a permanent leave of absence. In a
notation to a memo approving Fr. Leneweaver's leave, Cardinal Krol
wrote: His problem is not occupational or geographical & will follow
him wherever he goes. He should be convinced that his orientation is
an acquired preference for a particular method of satisfying a normal
human appetite. - An appetite which is totally incompatible with vow
of chastity + commitment to celibacy.

In 1997, Fr. Leneweaver wrote directly to Cardinal Bevilacqua,
expressing his interest in resuming active ministry .He sent the
Cardinal what Vicar for Administration Joseph Cistone referred to as
"a rather large packet of materials." It contained the priest's
resume; several letters of reference for teaching positions, at least
one written by an Archdiocese employee; a letter thanking the priest
for his volunteer work at a homeless shelter for youth; and a clean
criminal history record obtained by Fr. Leneweaver when he applied for
a teaching position in New Jersey in 1993.

In 1998, The Secretary for Clergy recommended that the Archdiocese
write Fr. Leneweaver and explain that "for his own welfare and the
welfare of the Church," his request to return to ministry could not be
granted.

On January 29, 2002, Msgrs. Lynn and Cistone were informed by memo
that Fr. Leneweaver had been teaching Latin and History full-time for
three years in the Philadelphia suburbs -in the North Penn and Central
Bucks School Districts.

> Father Joseph Gausch 117
Was ordained in 1945..... Was sent to therapy in 1948.
Was accused of allegations in 1994. Was investigated.
Father Joe Gausch DIED 12 years ago.

> Father Nicholas Cudemo 125
Was ordained in 1963. He retired in 1999.
He had his faculties restricted in 2002.
He liked the ladies.

> Father Peter Dunne 157
Was ordained in 1954. The diocese is informed he is a pedophile in
1994.
Father Pete attempted to buy the silence of his victims.
Father Pete requested unresticted retirement. He was denied.
Paperwork was sumitted to Laicize him in 1994.
Dunne retired to a cabin in 1995.

> Father James Brzyski 177
In 1984 he was confronted with numerous allegations. Father B
asked to resign. He was told that he could not. He needed to
confront his sins and try to work out his problems. He was sent to
therapy. He lied and convinced his superiors he was cured.
Finally he was removed from active ministry in the 1990's
And in 2004, his case was sent for forced laicization.

> Father David Sicoli 197
Was accused of sexual abuse in the 1970's and 1980's.
He was sent to therapy and couseling on several occasions.
In 2002, he was caught living with 2 boys in the rectory.
He had a bagful of excuses.
Allegations could not be substantiated. Finally.....
In 2004, he was forcibly removed from the ministry.
He refused to appear before the grand jury.

> Father John Connor 223
ordained in 1952. Was arrested in 1994. Was sent to therapy.
The DA did not indict, did not prosecute.
in 1993, he and the diocese were sued.
He was removed from the ministry and confined.
In the summer of 1991, Rome informed O'Connor that he was dismissed
from the Dominicans. O'Connor packed his bags and left the River
Forest Priory forever.

> Father Gerard Chambers 233
Ordained in 1934, Fr. Chambers was accused of molesting numerous altar
boys, and anally and orally raping at least one, during 40 years as a
priest in the Archdiocese. The priest was placed on permanent health
leave in 1963, at the age of 56. He died in 1974. His records were
destroyed in the 90's. Three more victims came forward in 2002.

--------------------------------------------

If you really want to discuss more dead priests accused of being in
active ministry, please let me know. We can continue...........
Right now, I'm getting tired.

> Father Michael McCarthy 243
> Father Albert Kostelnick 255
> Father Edward DePaoli 261
> Monsignor David Walls 277
> Father Francis Rogers 289
> Father Francis Trauger 303
> Father John Schmeer 313
> Monsignor Francis Giliberti 321
> Father John Mulholland 327
> Monsignor John Gillespie 339
> Monsignor Leonard Furmanski 347
> Father John Delli Carpini 359
> Father Thomas Wisniewski 365
> Father Thomas Smith 373
> Father Francis Gallagher 381
> Father Thomas Shea 387
> Father John Cannon 393
> Father Michael Bolesta 397
> Father Robert Brennan 405
>
> And from the 2011 report:
In fact, we discovered that there have been at least 37 such
> priests who have been
> kept in assignments that expose them to children. Ten of these priests
> have
> http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf

And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.

Michael McLean

unread,

Oct 3, 2022, 6:46:06 PM10/3/22

to

The mind boggles as to what came before...them.

The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.

Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
Protestant one.

It is that simple.

Michael McLean

--
Jesus is the everlasting Father, Jesus is God, Jesus is the Lord.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were
YET sinners, Christ died for us.

Jeremiah 10:23 O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it
is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

"To seek your own will is to seek your own glory."

"If God is not first in everything He is not first in anything."

"Sin is not what you do, it is what you are."

"What makes the bible the truth? The resonance of God."

"All men were born sinners. Why? Because all men were born not loving
God with all their heart, soul and mind. An abomination."

"Compromise will condemn you."

"There are no sinners in Christ Jesus."

"My sons are born of Me. In them is no darkness at all."

"You can't learn righteousness. Haven't you had enough time already to
know that?"

"The way of truth is the testimony of life."

"I merely speak the truth, what is revealed to me, and the cards fall
where God intends."

"Nothing that is produced is produced without first being faith."

"You can only find proof of God through faith because that is how we all
live, by faith."

"It is not what you do that matters, it is how you treat Me."

"Keep going forward. Forget about the past. Lift up your head, look
ahead."

"You cannot be free with guilt in your heart."

"Priority is everything."

"The truth doesn't need evidence, it is evidence."

"There is no greater possession a man has than his own will, to squander
it or to place it where it truly belongs."

"An atheist is a fool who thinks truth is found in living a lie."

"Saying "prove it" [as a foundation] is merely an ignorant straw man, to
an ignorant straw man."

"Wait, rest, be still, and know."

"No man can wash his own hands!!!"

"I find this in the Christianity religions: 'Nobody's perfect' they say,
and they use that as an excuse not to do what is perfect."

The Atheist: "They don't believe and put their faith in a Creator (the
obvious). So no evidence and proof is to be found!!"

"The world is the way it is because God can't compromise who He is."

"Man is not the centre of being."

"Man is incompatible with the natural world because of his sinful nature."

"And then the Lord said, "I see everything."

"Man has no greater idol than his own will."

"Where is God hiding? He isn't."

"If you don't keep all the scriptures, you can't keep any of them."

"You can't prove anything because everything depends on a person's
willingness to believe."

P+Barker

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 7:22:06 AM10/4/22

to

Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:

>> And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.

>The mind boggles as to what came before...them.

I agree.
What makes you think with such stupidity.

>The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
>mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.
>Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
>Protestant one.

As I've said over 100 times:

Admit what?
Of course I admit that some evil fag priests abused their position
and sexually abused children.
Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
forward 40 years after the fact.

Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
centers were they were "cured." Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
business, not the punishment business, they again made more
mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.

You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
What is it?

Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
and they found out that there aren't any.
Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
never be made again.
Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

Mattb

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 11:36:19 AM10/4/22

to

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 17:35:29 -0400, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

My questions were:
"What does this say about the core values of the RCC and have they

changed?

Would you trust your kids with the RCC?"

The core values haven't changed. Have they?

P+Barker

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 4:09:55 PM10/4/22

to

Mattb <trdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My questions were:
> "What does this say about the core values of the RCC and have they
>changed?
>Would you trust your kids with the RCC?"
>The core values haven't changed. Have they?

Nothing. Yes. No.

Michael McLean

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 4:46:05 PM10/4/22

to

On 4/10/2022 10:22 pm, P+Barker wrote:
> Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.
>
>
>
>> The mind boggles as to what came before...them.
>
> I agree.
> What makes you think with such stupidity.

Stupidity is ignoring the horrendous implications, the fact of what your
forefathers built their faith in your church upon.

>> The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
>> mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.
>> Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
>> Protestant one.
>
> As I've said over 100 times:
>
> Admit what?
> Of course I admit that some evil fag priests

All sinners are evil.

> abused their position
> and sexually abused children.
> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
> they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
> the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
> advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
> stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
> has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
> forward 40 years after the fact.

Perhaps your "church" should have sought a higher power than that of man?

> Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
> centers were they were "cured."

You can't cure sin, Buddy. It must be destroyed.

The human heart has to be cleansed of all unrighteousness...all...and
only God can do that. A holiday resort within your church for
'indulgences' doesn't do squat.

> Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
> business, not the punishment business, they again made more
> mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
> his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

Not only do you condemn your church sanctified [quote] "evil fag
priests", but you write off your bishops - your church sanctified
leaders - as bad decision makers.

Who the hell do you think you are, Barker, Robert the Holy sinner Who??

If you condemn your neighbour for sin and you condemn yourself. You,
like so many religious others, see yourself as a better class of sinner.

There again are those implications (fruit) mentioned earlier from your
so called church!

> This is all fact. Of course I admit it.

You splash around in the shallows of irrelevance and make it sound like
you are saying something. Or as the Lord Jesus said, you strain at a
gnat and swallow a camel.

> The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
> The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.

God help you!

> The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
> made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
> and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
> ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
> As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
> removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
> to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.
>
> You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
> against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
> way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
> responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
> some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
> And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
> What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
> What is it?

Loving God will all my heart, soul, and mind, and if your church did
that, you would not have to come up with all the excuses.

> Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
> They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
> There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
> problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
> priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
> And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
> Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
> made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
> victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
> and they found out that there aren't any.
> Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
> never be made again.
> Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
> The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.

You can't fix what you are!

If you were truly surrendered to God as your church presents, you
wouldn't have any "problems" and people wouldn't be left in the wake of
your sin!

It is, and is always as simple as that.

P+Barker

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 5:58:57 PM10/4/22

to

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:46:02 +1100, Michael McLean
<michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 4/10/2022 10:22 pm, P+Barker wrote:
>> Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The mind boggles as to what came before...them.
>>
>> I agree.
>> What makes you think with such stupidity.
>
>Stupidity is ignoring the horrendous implications, the fact of what your
>forefathers built their faith in your church upon.

What implications?
Please explain.
The Phila Grand Jury provided a false story.

>>> The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
>>> mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.
>>> Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
>>> Protestant one.
>>
>> As I've said over 100 times:
>>
>> Admit what?
>> Of course I admit that some evil fag priests
>
>All sinners are evil.

Of course they are.
I am speaking about a "FEW" evil fag priests.
They are sinners.
They are evil.
That does not imply that all priests are evil.

>
>
>> abused their position
>> and sexually abused children.
>> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>> they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>> the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
>> advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
>> stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
>> has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
>> forward 40 years after the fact.
>
>Perhaps your "church" should have sought a higher power than that of man?

Perhaps they did.
Should we blame God for giving men a free will?
Should we blame the church for the sins that some men committed?

>
>> Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>> centers were they were "cured."
>
>You can't cure sin, Buddy. It must be destroyed.

I didn't say that.
Over 50 uears ago APA leaders, in the glare of a national media
spotlight, took the controversial step of deleting homosexuality from
the Association's compendium of psychiatric disorders. That action
launched APA on a quarter century of efforts to end discrimination
against homosexuals and coincided with the increasing willingness of
gay and lesbian psychiatrists to insist openly that APA must listen to
them.
If there was an official kickoff for APA's newly energized gay
psychiatrists, it was the 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco,
Sabshin suggested, where Gay Liberation Front activists along with
political protesters in support of other social and political causes
disrupted the meeting. "It was guerilla theater" at that meeting and
the one held in Washington, D.C., the next year, he said.
In 1972, for the first time, the annual meeting featured exhibits and
discussions spotlighting positive aspects of the lives of gay
individuals. Also during that year well-known psychiatrists such as
Richard Green, M.D., Judd Marmor, M.D., and John Spiegel, M.D., began
openly challenging psychiatrists' attitudes toward and treatment of
homosexual patients, Sabshin observed. Marmor, a psychoanalyst who
would soon be elected APA president, played a particularly significant
role in trying to bridge the chasm that existed between his
psychoanalytic colleagues and psychiatrists who were convinced that
homosexuality was not an illness.
Sabshin credited the chair of APA's Committee on Nomenclature in the
early 1970s, Robert Spitzer, M.D., with playing a pivotal role in
propelling the evolution of APA's position on homosexuality. That
committee was charged with revising the initial version of DSM, and
Spitzer-armed with research showing there were no valid data to link
homosexuality and mental illness-advocated forcefully for the strategy
of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it
with a new one called "sexual orientation disturbance."
In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly
endorsed Spitzer's recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted
to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early
1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical
director. The Board's decision to delete homosexuality from the
diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership.
At the same time the debates over sexual orientation and
psychopathology were occurring, a small group of gay psychiatrists was
holding informal meetings to explore forming an organization that
would heighten their visibility and that of gay patients.
In the mid 1980s APA formed a task force on homosexuality issues, and
by that time, Cabaj emphasized, it was able to focus not on the
psychopathology battle but on homophobia, discrimination, and
stereotyping. The task force was eventually elevated to a permanent
component, the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. One of
its earliest chairs was San Francisco psychiatrist James Krajeski,
M.D., who this month became editor of Psychiatric News.
While gay psychiatrists "now have a place at the table," APA and
psychiatry in general will still have to address several troubling
issues related to homosexuality, said Rubin, a research fellow at UCLA
and member of the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues.
Prominent on this list is the large number of psychiatry residency
programs where nothing is taught about homosexuality or where the
program is "gay for a day," that is, where a few hours are devoted to
this topic often via a guest speaker. In addition, psychiatrists will
be called upon to take a leadership role in discussions of the
relative influence of biological factors on the development of sexual
orientation, he said.
http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

>The human heart has to be cleansed of all unrighteousness...all...and
>only God can do that. A holiday resort within your church for
>'indulgences' doesn't do squat.

Is your heart cleansed?
How can you insure that someone else's heart has be cleansed?
Sometimes you must utilize "experts" in the field to determine if
something is correct or not?

>> Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>> business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>> mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>> his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops
>
>Not only do you condemn your church sanctified [quote] "evil fag
>priests", but you write off your bishops - your church sanctified
>leaders - as bad decision makers.

There are evil fags in every creed and culture.
Look around.
Talk to yer buddy, matt.
And... everyone makes mistakes.
Everyone sins. Even you.
Jesus said so.
1 John 1:8
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us.

Genesis 6:12
God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had
corrupted their way upon the earth.

1 Kings 8:46
“When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and
You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they
take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;

Ecclesiastes 7:20
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does
good and who never sins.

Romans 3:10
as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Galatians 3:22
But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise
by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

>Who the hell do you think you are, Barker, Robert the Holy sinner Who??

I am Patrick Barker, a practicing Catholic.

>If you condemn your neighbour for sin and you condemn yourself. You,
>like so many religious others, see yourself as a better class of sinner.

I do not have the ability to condemn others.
And, I am not better than anyone, except maybe... you.

>There again are those implications (fruit) mentioned earlier from your
>so called church!

If you insist on limiting the second law to applications involving
thermal entropy, and that the only entropy is thermal entropy, than
Sal is right that the second law has little to say about the emergence
of life on Earth. But it is not just the "creationists" who apply it
much more generally, many violent opponents of ID (including Asimov,
Dawkins, Styer and Bunn) agree that this emergence does represent a
decrease in "entropy" in the more general sense, they just argue that
this decrease is compensated by increases outside our open system, an
argument that is so widely used that I created the video below,
Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward to address it a few
months ago.

>> This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
>
>You splash around in the shallows of irrelevance and make it sound like
>you are saying something. Or as the Lord Jesus said, you strain at a
>gnat and swallow a camel.

It must be Tuesday, I've brought my tomato sauce and a surly duck.
Hardly any Wednesdays sing on Thursdays without a choir.

>> The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
>> The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.
>
>God help you!

God always helps me.

Michael McLean

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 6:58:45 PM10/4/22

to

On 5/10/2022 8:58 am, P+Barker wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:46:02 +1100, Michael McLean
> <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/2022 10:22 pm, P+Barker wrote:
>>> Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The mind boggles as to what came before...them.
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>> What makes you think with such stupidity.
>>
>> Stupidity is ignoring the horrendous implications, the fact of what your
>> forefathers built their faith in your church upon.
>
> What implications?
> Please explain.

Really?

Luk_6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth
a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

> The Phila Grand Jury provided a false story.

Not relevant.

>>>> The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
>>>> mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.
>>>> Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
>>>> Protestant one.
>>>
>>> As I've said over 100 times:
>>>
>>> Admit what?
>>> Of course I admit that some evil fag priests
>>
>> All sinners are evil.
>
> Of course they are.
> I am speaking about a "FEW" evil fag priests.
> They are sinners.
> They are evil.
> That does not imply that all priests are evil.

Irrelevant.

You point your finger at them, being a sinner yourself. Now, that is
relevant to the Lord. Mary wouldn't be too impressed either! :-).

>>> abused their position
>>> and sexually abused children.
>>> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>>> they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>>> the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
>>> advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
>>> stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
>>> has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
>>> forward 40 years after the fact.
>>
>> Perhaps your "church" should have sought a higher power than that of man?
>
> Perhaps they did.

Obviously they didn't. Unless God's will is flawed??

> Should we blame God for giving men a free will?
> Should we blame the church for the sins that some men committed?

You judge heavenly things by earthly standards, Patrick.

>>> Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>>> centers were they were "cured."
>>
>> You can't cure sin, Buddy. It must be destroyed.
>
> I didn't say that.

But God did.

Interesting, but the ways of man are not the path of righteousness,
neither can they be.

This is what you are not seeing, how men in your church seek to fix
things, when they can't. In fact, you put an impossible weight on their
shoulders with the expectation that they can and will.

>> The human heart has to be cleansed of all unrighteousness...all...and
>> only God can do that. A holiday resort within your church for
>> 'indulgences' doesn't do squat.
>
> Is your heart cleansed?

Of course, how else can I speak the truth of God?! Is truth of myself??
Of course not! The truth I speak may not coincide with your ideals,
but why would you expect they would??

> How can you insure that someone else's heart has be cleansed?

When you walk in the light, you see. Praise be to God!

> Sometimes you must utilize "experts" in the field to determine if
> something is correct or not?

No, God is the authority, and there is none other.

You are supposed to believe in Him, and Him alone. He will not share
His glory with another!

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give
to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Believe it or not, that "psychiatry" is a graven image, a stone statue
not knowing anything.

I know, it is not "normal" in the fallen world.

>>> Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>>> business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>>> mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>>> his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>>> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops

>> Not only do you condemn your church sanctified [quote] "evil fag
>> priests", but you write off your bishops - your church sanctified
>> leaders - as bad decision makers.
>
> There are evil fags in every creed and culture.
> Look around.
> Talk to yer buddy, matt.
> And... everyone makes mistakes.
> Everyone sins. Even you.
> Jesus said so.
> 1 John 1:8
> If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
> in us.

That was not the end of the matter.

> Genesis 6:12
> God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had
> corrupted their way upon the earth.

That was not the end of the matter.

> 1 Kings 8:46
> “When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and
> You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they
> take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near;

That was not the end of the matter.

> Ecclesiastes 7:20
> Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does
> good and who never sins.

That was not the end of the matter.

> Romans 3:10
> as it is written,
> “There is none righteous, not even one;

That was not the end of the matter.

> Romans 3:23
> for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

That was not the end of the matter.

> Galatians 3:22
> But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise
> by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Now there is the end of the matter.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not die so that you, your church, or me, or
anybody had to remain as they are.

With God, all things are possible.

How comfortable are you in your skin, Patrick? I wasn't.

>> Who the hell do you think you are, Barker, Robert the Holy sinner Who??
>
> I am Patrick Barker, a practicing Catholic.

I think it is high time you became practicing believer in God.

>> If you condemn your neighbour for sin and you condemn yourself. You,
>> like so many religious others, see yourself as a better class of sinner.
>
> I do not have the ability to condemn others.
> And, I am not better than anyone, except maybe... you.

Of course! :-).

What about those "evil fag priests"? :-).

>> There again are those implications (fruit) mentioned earlier from your
>> so called church!
>
> If you insist on limiting the second law to applications involving
> thermal entropy, and that the only entropy is thermal entropy, than
> Sal is right that the second law has little to say about the emergence
> of life on Earth. But it is not just the "creationists" who apply it
> much more generally, many violent opponents of ID (including Asimov,
> Dawkins, Styer and Bunn) agree that this emergence does represent a
> decrease in "entropy" in the more general sense, they just argue that
> this decrease is compensated by increases outside our open system, an
> argument that is so widely used that I created the video below,
> Evolution is a Natural Process Running Backward to address it a few
> months ago.

This doesn't appear to have anything to do with what we are talking about.

>>> This is all fact. Of course I admit it.
>>
>> You splash around in the shallows of irrelevance and make it sound like
>> you are saying something. Or as the Lord Jesus said, you strain at a
>> gnat and swallow a camel.
>
> It must be Tuesday, I've brought my tomato sauce and a surly duck.
> Hardly any Wednesdays sing on Thursdays without a choir.

Nevertheless, as above.

>>> The evil fag priests were bad. Of course I admit it.
>>> The bishops were stupid and made the wrong choices. I admit that.
>>
>> God help you!
>
> God always helps me.

Then the truth in this post is welcomed, or simply spurned and mocked?

>>> The fact is that YOU refuse to admit that perhaps the RCC
>>> made its mistakes, admitted its mistakes, paid for those mistakes,
>>> and has made positive corrective actions to prevent this from
>>> ever happening again. No fag priest is now allowed in the ministry.
>>> As soon as any priest is accused of misconduct, he is immediately
>>> removed from the ministry. The bishops all have marching orders
>>> to cooperate with civil authorities when it comes to this crime.
>>>
>>> You don't want to let this go, because you have another agenda
>>> against the RCC. You feel you were wronged by the RCC in some
>>> way - perhaps because they informed you that YOU are totally
>>> responsible for your bad decisions and your actions. You have
>>> some sort of sin that you feel should be accepted by the church.
>>> And you are pissed because the RCC refuses to let you off the hook.
>>> What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
>>> What is it?

Mike wrote:
>> Loving God will all my heart, soul, and mind, and if your church did
>> that, you would not have to come up with all the excuses.

Patrick wrote (everyone doesn't have to be as you are):

> What is your particular sin? Abortion? Divorce? Homosexual acts?
> What is it?

I was cleansed of all unrighteousness by the Lord.

Your quote, here you go...

Galatians 3:22
> But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise
> by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

To be clean, Patrick, to be clean. But if you are happy to be remain
dirty, so be it.

>>> Most Catholics were shocked when the crisis first came about.
>>> They were disturbed, wary, and wanted explanations.
>>> There were no good excuses. However, after studying the
>>> problem, most Catholics have just come to realize that the
>>> priests that they held so high on pedestals were merely humans.
>>> And, the bishops were dumbstruck on how to handle the problem.
>>> Most Catholics have now accepted the fact that mistakes were
>>> made, poor decisions, and some hushing up to protect the
>>> victims and accused. The bishops looked for quiet solutions,
>>> and they found out that there aren't any.
>>> Protocols have changed, and those same decisions will
>>> never be made again.
>>> Most Catholics are watching, praying and will remain vigilant.
>>> The outsiders are still trying to raise mobs and start bonfires.
>>
>> You can't fix what you are!
>
> You can't fix what you are!

I didn't.

You are avoiding the context.

>> If you were truly surrendered to God as your church presents, you
>> wouldn't have any "problems" and people wouldn't be left in the wake of
>> your sin!
>>

> If you were truly surrendered to God as your church presents, you
> wouldn't have any "problems" and people wouldn't be left in the wake
> of your sin!

You are avoiding the truth. And for the record, the true Church of
Jesus Christ is without spot or blemish, perfect, and ready waiting for
her husband...

Son 2:8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the
mountains, skipping upon the hills.

..to come, and has a wedding gown on without so much as a speck of dirt.

How do I know that? Well, you are going to have to ask my Beloved.

Michael McLean

PS: Just focus on what is truth, Patrick, and stop trying to defend the
undefendable.

Mattb

unread,

Oct 4, 2022, 9:51:06 PM10/4/22

to

On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:09:53 -0400, P+Barker <PBa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

It says much about the soul of the RCC. Every member that has
donated to the RCC has also taken part in this evil cover-up and
defense of pedophilia.

P+Barker

unread,

Oct 5, 2022, 7:52:20 AM10/5/22

to

On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 09:58:39 +1100, Michael McLean

<michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 5/10/2022 8:58 am, P+Barker wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 07:46:02 +1100, Michael McLean
>> <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/10/2022 10:22 pm, P+Barker wrote:
>>>> Michael McLean <michaelm...@outlook.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> And many of the 37 priests on active duty have been dead for 35 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The mind boggles as to what came before...them.
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>> What makes you think with such stupidity.
>>>
>>> Stupidity is ignoring the horrendous implications, the fact of what your
>>> forefathers built their faith in your church upon.
>>
>> What implications?
>> Please explain.
>
>Really?
>
>Luk_6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth
>a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

OK. What does that have to do with faith in Jesus?

>> The Phila Grand Jury provided a false story.
>
>Not relevant.

That is what this post is about.

>>>>> The biggest problem with you, Buddy Barker, is that you try to sweep a
>>>>> mile high pile of excrement under a carpet.
>>>>> Your church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, and neither is the
>>>>> Protestant one.
>>>>
>>>> As I've said over 100 times:
>>>>
>>>> Admit what?
>>>> Of course I admit that some evil fag priests
>>>
>>> All sinners are evil.
>>
>> Of course they are.
>> I am speaking about a "FEW" evil fag priests.
>> They are sinners.
>> They are evil.
>> That does not imply that all priests are evil.
>
>Irrelevant.

That does not imply that all priests are evil.

That is what this post is about.

>You point your finger at them, being a sinner yourself. Now, that is
>relevant to the Lord. Mary wouldn't be too impressed either! :-).

All people sin. Even you.

>>>> abused their position
>>>> and sexually abused children.
>>>> Of course I admit that bishops were dumbfounded as to what
>>>> they should do. Since most victims and families wanted to keep
>>>> the abuse quiet, the bishops looked for other solutions. They sought
>>>> advice from the leading shrinks of the day, and by God, they were
>>>> stupid enough to follow that advice. And because of this, the church
>>>> has paid out $ 3 Billion to the lawyers of the victims who came
>>>> forward 40 years after the fact.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your "church" should have sought a higher power than that of man?
>>
>> Perhaps they did.
>
>Obviously they didn't. Unless God's will is flawed??

Do you think God will prevent sin?
Try to remember that all people have free wills.

>> Should we blame God for giving men a free will?
>> Should we blame the church for the sins that some men committed?
>
>You judge heavenly things by earthly standards, Patrick.

Should we blame the church for the sins that some men committed?

>>>> Those bishops sent those offending evil fag priests to treatment
>>>> centers were they were "cured."
>>>
>>> You can't cure sin, Buddy. It must be destroyed.
>>
>> I didn't say that.
>
>But God did.

No, he didn't.
God has never given men the approval or ability to destroy sin.

I didn't say that the ways of man are the path of righteousness.
Men err. Men sin.

>This is what you are not seeing, how men in your church seek to fix
>things, when they can't. In fact, you put an impossible weight on their
>shoulders with the expectation that they can and will.

Of course men (in church and out of church) seek to fix things.
That is what we do.

>>> The human heart has to be cleansed of all unrighteousness...all...and
>>> only God can do that. A holiday resort within your church for
>>> 'indulgences' doesn't do squat.
>>
>> Is your heart cleansed?
>
>Of course, how else can I speak the truth of God?! Is truth of myself??

<Yawn>

> Of course not! The truth I speak may not coincide with your ideals,
>but why would you expect they would??

Why do you claim to speak the truth?
Are you "seeking" to "FIX THINGS?"
You've already said man cannot fix things.
See above.

>> How can you insure that someone else's heart has be cleansed?
>
>When you walk in the light, you see. Praise be to God!

<Yawn>
Praise the Lord and pass the potatoes.

>> Sometimes you must utilize "experts" in the field to determine if
>> something is correct or not?
>
>No, God is the authority, and there is none other.

Then why are you here again?
You are no authority.
You said so yourself.

>You are supposed to believe in Him, and Him alone. He will not share
>His glory with another!

Praise the Lord and pass the potatoes.

>Isa 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give
>to another, neither my praise to graven images.
>Believe it or not, that "psychiatry" is a graven image, a stone statue
>not knowing anything.
>I know, it is not "normal" in the fallen world.

Then why are you here again?
You are no authority.
You said so yourself.

>>>> Since the RCC is in the forgiveness
>>>> business, not the punishment business, they again made more
>>>> mistakes by believing the repentant evil fag priest was sorry for
>>>> his sins, and they allowed him to remain in the ministry.
>>>> I admit this was a bad decision on the part of the bishops
>
>
>
>>> Not only do you condemn your church sanctified [quote] "evil fag
>>> priests", but you write off your bishops - your church sanctified
>>> leaders - as bad decision makers.
>>
>> There are evil fags in every creed and culture.
>> Look around.
>> Talk to yer buddy, matt.
>> And... everyone makes mistakes.
>> Everyone sins. Even you.
>> Jesus said so.
>> 1 John 1:8
>> If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
>> in us.
>
>That was not the end of the matter.