yeshuaslavejeff
New member
.
Don't be.
The Master Yahshua never once apologized to the satanists. He called them what they were, told them to their face, and warned His disciples to beware of them more than anything else.
toldailytopic: Pedophile priests. Why does the the Catholic Church have such a wide-s
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Don't be.
The Master Yahshua never once apologized to the satanists. He called them what they were, told them to their face, and warned His disciples to beware of them more than anything else.
Cruciform
New member
The claim that an "institutional cover-up" has occurred is ridiculous and without any substance whatsoever. The clergy abuse scandal involved less than 2% of ordained priests in the Catholic Church---hardly a number requiring an "institutional cover-up." A handful of bishops, desiring to deal with isolated cases of abuse in their respective dioceses in-house, presumed to move the offenders to other ministerial situations in the hope that they would somehow be able to repent and reform their lives. Of course, we all know now that this was naive in the extreme, as well as punishable by the Church and by civil law.
A "systematic conspiracy" involving less than 2% of ordained priests worldwide? Be serious, please. :doh:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Please cite the number of the post, and quote the exact statement where I supposedly "defended child rapists" or justified such actions in any way. Otherwise, you need to publically retract your slanderous statement immediately.
Also, please properly educate yourself on these issues, and avoid further public embarrassment:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0534.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0534.html
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Gee, just think, Jeff...if you were Master Yahshua, you could do that, too! But you're not, are you. Nor are you in any position to judge another man's servant (and fellow Christian) with the demonstrably slanderous and intentionally inflamatory label of "satanist." To quote St. Paul: "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you..." (1 Cor. 4:3). Get over yourself.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
And the Holocaust didn't happen. Seriously: what else is in your bag of tricks and denial? Are you ignorant of what's being disclosed in Ireland and Belgium, just as examples?
I'd like to know where this figure comes from, especially considering the scope of revelations that continues to grow.
That's an extremely strained and not entirely accurate depiction of what happened. We are dealing with church authorities at every level who knew what was going on, who refused to deal with the problem, and who consistently aided and abetted this behavior for decades. And on every continent, no less. This is not an isolated problem; it is an endemic one.
I see, and the wretches who conspired to cover up this abuse didn't know this THEN? I can't tell if you're being deliberately thick or if you're just this deeply deluded and naive.
Are you able to add one of those polls to TOL--who is more wicked--the Satanist or the pious Catholic? :think: It's so hard to decide.
If there were any Satanists left on TOL you might be onto something.:juggle:
Cruciform
New member
Sure, cause that's a completely rational and reasonable comparison, right? What a flake.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
Note that the sources cited in this article are non-Catholic ones....in your expert opinion, right? :doh:
Yes..."this behavior" of less than 2% of Catholic priests. According to you, it took the entire Catholic Church worldwide to cover up the sins of less than 2% of the priests in its charge. Be serious, please.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Please properly educate yourself before speaking. You're just embarrassing yourself. :doh:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Given the way you're reaching and the level of your denial I'd say it's completely reasonable.
The book you refer to is written by a former Catholic and limits itself to a small sample of known offenders. And I'm not just referring to pedophiles; I'm referring to all clergy members who have raped children, period. That's a distinction I've made here that you've either chosen to ignore or just don't want to deal with.
Are you even reading my posts?
Cruciform
New member
O-kaaay... Well, you go ahead and toddle off now, while I go over here and talk to the big people... :kookoo:
You are clueless. The study he's working from is a major statistical analysis of the entire clergy abuse phenomenon. Get your facts straight, you're embarrassing yourself.
There's a difference between "pedophiles" and "those who have raped children"? In any case, as already observed, the total number of priests involved amounts to less than 2%.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Oh, I see, so every single offender was included in this study. In every country where abuse occurred. And the study is up to date, as of September 2010. Who are you trying to kid?
Yes, there is. Read the information from the link you posted, smart guy. Or did you just skim it and not actually read it for yourself?
I'm afraid that fails on two counts. It's neither credible nor non-Catholic. Sure, this may be a guest post from a non-Catholic, but it's posted to a web site run by a Catholic (the Dustin mentioned in the post) on a web site specifically dedicated to selling the idea of NFP to the masses. Second, it has about the level of credibility of a blog post, and even taken at face value, it offers no more than anecdotal evidence. Worse, it doesn't really mention even an actual anecdote about the effectiveness; it just offers essentially one person's willingness to try it out later when she doesn't want kids again.
Catholics have a doctrinal (i.e. non-evidence-based) reason for believing in NFP, which frequently distorts their evaluation of the evidence. That they are trying to sell their doctrine to non-Catholics is not surprising. What would be surprising is if we found that their approach were actually adopted by other people in significant numbers. That would offer some informal evidence of effectiveness, or at least belief in effectiveness. But for most people, including most non-Catholic Christians, who are not encumbered by a religious need to reach a specific predetermined conclusion, the various other forms of birth control have obvious advantages and often very few disadvantages, and they work a lot better.
Well, honesty is the best policy, I think. But I can assure you that my reaction is neither "gut-level" nor "knee-jerk". I need only read the first sentence of the drivel the Pope publishes to know what it's going to be like, and to know that it will contain nothing like the things which I have come to regard as evidence. And more importantly, he seeks, not to join a moral conversation, but to end it, and to place his authority over all with the misfortune to fall under it, and I simply have no interest in being spoken to in that fashion.
Now, when I first posted on this topic, I laid out my understanding of the Church's position, and rather than correct any error you might have seen, you point me to long treatises which you expect me to read. That makes for a poor discussion, and it shouldn't be necessary, and it is frequently used as a diversion tactic. The simpler and more conversational approach would be to correct the error in place.
I agree. If the problem were certain members of the Church, that wouldn't be anything against the institution. However, the problems in the church seem to be systematic, not personal. And that's the most important difference. And after that, there is the problem that the people who pontificate against condom use are often the same people who have worked to conceal the crimes of child abusers, which I think gravely undermines their personal moral authority regardless of what office they hold in the Church.
Cruciform
New member
Your makeshift and self-serving standard is ridiculously arbitrary and unrealistic. No scholar in the world would insist upon any such wildly inept and narrow demand. You're arguing merely for the sake of hearing yourself talk now. Please go waste someone else's time.
Yes, I know the difference, but didn't think that you endorsed it. So, then, the overall statistic stands at less than 2% of active priests in the Catholic Church. The number of actual "pedophiles" is far lower than even that. According to the article I cited earlier:
"Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy."
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
...and talking like a stuffed shirt doesn't make you smart or right, by the way. I pointed out the facts: you're waving around this 2% statistic based on an extremely limited pool of the Catholic offenders we know of based on the age of a certain subset of offenders's victims. The reality and scope of church-sanctioned abuse not only continues to be exposed but also doesn't just involve the clergy, for that matter: look at the recent revelations in Ireland concerning the savagery and sadism that went on in the orphanages there.
Interesting, considering you seemed clueless when I made the distinction. Or are you just backpedaling now after you had to figure out what I was talking about? This is what happens when you don't actually read my posts, Cru.
The depth, scope, and extent of this Catholic-sanctioned church-abetted depravity continues to come to light, whether you like it or admit it. One aside: have you once on this thread actually condemned the abusers, the cover up, the lies, the deceit, and called for justice to be done? Because you seem more intent on trying to deny the reality of child rape within the church and excuse it away.
:think:
Then you won't mind taking this test. Let us know how you do.
On what basis can Cruciform call himself a Christian? Is he still preaching dead works? Isa 64:6.
On what basis can you say you are headed for heaven? Does God take the highest score? Does he grade on a curve? Are you teacher's pet?
Last edited:
Cruciform
New member
Nice ad hominem, Einstein. (See, I can do it, too.)
You declared your imaginary speculations.
No, the numbers I cited come from a major statistical study on the subject. Your inability to deal with that fact is entirely beside the point. Indeed, if you have a similarly reliable study to cite, then let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got nothing.
Your confusion, your problem.
Cite a single posted statement of mine in which I in any way "deny the reality of child rape" or "excuse it away." You need to issue a public retraction of your slanderous claim immediately.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
And I pointed out the problems with this study already. You've ignored what I said.
Wrong again. I pointed out the difference being child rapists and pedophiles and you seemed taken aback that I thought there was a difference. You don't seem able to understand what I write or keep your story straight.
I have nothing to retract or apologize for. Meanwhile, you're still trying to run interference for an organization that continues to cover up child abuse around the world.
- Status