A Matrix-style poster depicting a Catholic priest as Neo isn't a spoof. The Catholic Church really is distributing these things. It's part of their
new recruitment campaign:
The poster's creator, the Rev. Jonathan Meyer, 28, associate director of youth ministries for the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, says pop culture is the key to attracting young men to an occupation that has gotten bad press.
"If we can get high-school youth to hang a picture of a priest in their room, that's huge in helping young men to answer the call to the priesthood," the cleric said. "Anyone who is a 'Matrix' guru looks at the picture and automatically gets it."
Crucifix in hand, Father Meyer posed for the poster, rated R for "restricted to those radically in love with Jesus Christ." Running time is "all eternity," and its title reads, "The Catholic priesthood: The answer is out there ... and it's calling you."
I'm wondering how far the Neo as Catholic priest analogy can be extended. In the second Matrix movie, Neo has sex with Trinity. So how are we supposed to interpret that? In one sense it seems appropriate (priests are dedicating themselves to God, or the Holy Trinity), but in another way it doesn't seem to be the message the Church intended. (via
Notes From the Lounge)
A Matrix-style poster depicting a Catholic priest as Neo isn't a spoof. The Catholic Church really is distributing these things. It's part of their new recruitment campaign:
Comments
"Regarding what I meant about other denominations having sexually immoral people I was just trying to state The Catholic Church is not the only one with these people in it."
Again, so what? Two wrongs STILL don't make a right.
OK, I'll repeat what I said before since you don't seem to have gotten it. The fact that the Catholic Church moved priests around to avoid prosecution was central to several of the child molestations suits against it. It was shown in court that some of the accused priests were moved around by the Church AFTER the allegations against them were first made.
To date, the Catholic Church in America has paid out the better part of a BILLION DOLLARS to victims. With so much at stake, you have to ask yourself why the Church consistently settles out of court. Could it possibly be that the Holy Roman Catholic Church KNOWS it's guilty and doesn't want to have to face a jury? I mean, since the Catholic Church is infallible and all, wouldn't the TRUTH work for them if they were innocent?
"Finally and most importantly I am not trying to protect molestors and sexual abusers. No. I am simply trying to state while this world has a couple bad seeds don't assume the entire field of crops is ruined because of it. I do Not approve of molestors I am just asking for evidence on your arguments. And you Know what I am also just asking you not to get mad at the Church for what weak humans have done. Saying oh you know what? A couple bad priest's molested kids. That must mean the whole church is a corrupt one does not make any sense. No I am just trying to defend my Church, the one true church by stating regardless of whwether or not molestors are in the Church is pointless."
There are apparantly more than a few pedophile
priests in the Catholic Church. An even bigger
problem, however, is the fact that the Church's
"management" has covered up for them. The fact
that you happen to not be aware of that does NOT
mean that it isn't true.
By the way, your opinion that the Catholic Church is the "one true church" is irrelevant. That does NOT change their legal culpability for protecting child molesters from the law.
Please don't lecture me about Catholic doctrine. I had 12 years of Catholic school and I'm sure I'm at least as familiar with it as you are.
Here are some links you may find interesting:
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=8607
This one has SEVERAL interesting links in it:
http://www.harpers.org/subjects/CatholicFaith/SubjectOf/Event
This one gives details about Church officials
hiding pedophile priests:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050731/NEWS08/507310305/-1/ARCHIVES30
Make sure to read the third paragraph of this one:
http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/print4/072403_report.htm
Need more? There's plenty more where that came from.
"I NEVER said 2 wrongs make a right I was just saying how come you people make it seem like only priests do this sort of thing?"
This thread is specifically about the Catholic Church. You're right, we haven't mentioned clergy from other denominations in this thread. We also haven't mentioned the National League standings. Know why? They aren't relevant to this current discussion, that's why.
When you insist on bringing up clergy from other denominations (you never provide any names, interestingly), it sounds as if you ARE trying to say that two wrongs make a right.
"When you mention the church paying money for crimes- they were just doing the inevitable sooner than if they had to pay them after the jury so they decided to speed up the process."
They would only have to pay the victims after a trial if the jury found them GUILTY. So, they paid before the trial which they knew would end in a finding of guilty anyway? OK, that makes sense, although it pretty much throws your point out the window.
"The Pope is not trying to cover this up and as I said earlier is aware those pedophiles WILL be punished by GOD."
Yes, the Pope, in the form of Catholic "management" in the Vatican, absolutely HAS covered up child molestation by priests. I gave you links to articles (as you asked me to) where prosecutors specifically SAID that the Church had covered up those activities for decades. Is Boston's D.A. lying? You know, when you challenged me to show you where that was stated, I KNEW you would deny any evidence I showed you. I did it anyway and you didn't disappoint me.
"Excuse me I said a few Mr. Picky media Guy. Man do you honestly think the Church did not punish them for their crimes?"
Yes, that's exactly what I believe. If you can show me evidence that the Church has punished any pedophile priest, I'd be very interested in seeing it. You realize, of course, that if the Church did that, it would be a tacit admission that the priests harmed children.
Besides, any "punishment" the Church meted out would not make the guilty priests immune from legal prosecution. They should be behind bars, period.
"Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston announced a policy Wednesday mandating that all clergy and volunteers in his archdiocese report allegations of abuse of minors to law enforcement authorities."
Wow, that's ALMOST as interesting as the paragraph which IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES THAT ONE:
"The Vatican published new rules Tuesday ordering church officials worldwide to swiftly inform the Holy See of such cases. But it also declared the cases subject to secrecy, prompting debate about whether the regulations will build or erode trust in the church."
OR the one IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE ONE YOU QUOTED:
"Law had opposed mandatory reporting, but reversed course as details became known in the case of a defrocked Massachusetts priest, John Geoghan, suspected of molesting dozens of people."
Or, how about THIS paragraph:
"Geoghan, 66, who goes on trial Monday, had been moved from parish to parish for years, even though the archdiocese had evidence he sexually abused children. Geoghan also faces 84 civil lawsuits. More than 130 people have claimed he fondled or raped them during the three decades he served in Boston-area parishes."
You gave me the link to the story; did you think I WOULDN'T look at it and find the information surrounding the few sentences you quoted out of context?
What the article REALLY says is that Cardinal Law only threatened to report child molesting priests AFTER some victims sued. Wow, THAT'S morality!
Hey, what's THIS I found a few paragraphs further down the page:
"The Rev. Thomas Doyle, one of three authors of a 1985 report to the bishops' conference warning more must be done to stop abuse, said some progress has been made. Bishops no longer shuffle accused priests from parish to parish, and some of the cases being heard now concern abuse that occurred years ago."
So, it took the Church from 1985 when Doyle submitted his report until 1992, when the article YOU pointed me to was written, to take ANY action about child molesting priests. Seven years. Wow.
Oh, did you notice the very interesting information in the last sentence in that last paragraph I quoted from the article YOU pointed me to? I'll show it to you again:
"Bishops NO LONGER shuffle accused priests from parish to parish..." [emphasis mine]
In other words, what I've been saying all along was correct; the Church hierarchy had a policy of moving accused child molesting priests around to avoid prosecution.
By the way, in this article, which YOU offered as "proof" of your point of view, there is NO mention of the Church punishing ANYONE.
Thank you, Joshua, for pointing me to an article which proves MY points so well.
Can I make a suggestion to you? I think perhaps you should read this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Oh and given that "God and I? We're ready" thing, you might want to look into "delusions of grandeur" as well.
"A tool of GOD"?
Well, half of it is right.
Joshua, I'm going to say something now and I know it's going to upset you. I swear to you, however, that I am NOT trying to piss you off.
I honestly think you have some mental issues. I've tried to deal with you as a rational person, but I can see now that that isn't possible. You started off here by insulting anyone who doesn't agree with your Catholic faith and you keep changing your position whenever PROOF that you are factually incorrect comes along.
I'm truly sorry that you have these problems. I hope you can get some help for them, but you need to stop attacking other people gratuitiously. Your personal problems are not an excuse for lashing out and your faith in Catholicism, no matter how sincere, does not give you license to insult others, like when you called Protestants "retards." That isn't "Christlike," by any standard I can understand.
If it makes you happy to think that you've won this debate, well, go right ahead. I guess you need to believe that.
For the record, I wasn't accusing him of being retarded. I was actually thinking more along the lines of schizophrenia.
I spent three years in the late '90's working right outside the White House on Pennsylvania Ave. There's a surprising number of mentally ill people who come there from all over, often in an attempt to get the attention of the President so he will help them by, say, removing the chip they think has been implanted in their skull (yes, some people literally believe things like that).
During my time there, I knew TWO people who thought they were the reincarnation of Christ. Joshua was starting to remind me of them.
I just wanted to comment on the "Joshua Situation" why would you say Joshua was reminding you of peeple who thought they were Christ. He said he was a Catholic not a reicarnated saviour. he also said he was a tool of God.But nowhere did he say he waas the Chgrist. Alkso I agrre with you and your ideas on how the church has been keeping these things secret. Keep up the good work on this site. It's awesome!
"why would you say Joshua was reminding you of peeple who thought they were Christ. He said he was a Catholic not a reicarnated saviour. he also said he was a tool of God.But nowhere did he say he waas the Chgrist."
No, that's true that he never said he was Christ. He did, however, refer to himself as a "tool of God" and at one point said something about he and God saying "bring it on" or something similar. It just seemed like he was possibly exhibiting delusions of grandeur to me.
Anyway, welcome to the discussion, Andy.
Brring it on Catholics!
For the record, I am neither Protestant nor a Catholic.
"Oh? Well ATHEIST then you can cetaintly count on spending your eternity burning"
So, because I said I was neither Catholic nor Protestant, you automatically concluded that I am an atheist. I suspected as much, but you just confirmed that you aren't exactly Mensa Society material.
By the way, I guess you missed all that "judge not lest ye be judged" stuff in the Bible, huh?
Just so you know, your opinions about my ultimate destination are irrelevant to me.
This may shock you, but I don't care if you "hate" me. Since you don't know me, what you REALLY hate is the fact that you can't disprove what I'm saying.
Now, do you have anything to contribute to the discussion here?
I'd like to make one small correction in your logic, Charybdis, if I may, You said, "No, Atheists can certainly count on spending all eternity not existing."
It's a clever line, but not exactly accurate. Atheists can "count on spending all enternity not existing" so long as their primary supposition is correct -- just as I can count on spending all enternity in Heaven only if my primary suppositions (at least some of them) are correct. The eternal reality, whatever it turns out to be, is not dependent on the beliefs of anybody at all. The fact that you believe one thing and I believe another doesn't affect eternity one eensy-teensy bit.
And as for Andy's question as to whether Joshua's statement that he is a "tool of God" could be interpreted as something along the lines of, "I have God's back and with him I can do anything."
I'd say you are right, Andy. "Tool of God" sounds like a grandiose statement, and indeed it sometimes is because when some (and maybe most -- I don't know) people say it, it means "I am a crucial part of God's plans for humanity." But it can actually also be considered a statement of humility -- kind of like Mary's statement when she found out that she was going to give birth to the Messiah, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." If you really consider yourself God's tool or servant or handmaiden, you have given up yourself. You no longer think of yourself. You are trying to do exactly what God wants you to do. And you can't get much more humble than that.
Of course, most of us can't or won't do that, and I can't say that Joshua gave much sign that he was one of the few who has. And neither has Protestant Hater, for that matter -- Cranky's reference to "Judge not" is extremely apt.
Oh, and one other thing: Cranky, I don't really think you should feel too bad about Joshua. Maybe you did goad him a bit, but...I don't think he needed much goading. Poor guy apparently has some "issues" even if he doesn't have delusions of grandeur.
May St. Michael the Archangel Protect the One true Church.
Michael Vitale
A Matrix-style poster depicting a Catholic priest as Neo isn't a spoof. The Catholic Church really is distributing these things. It's part of their new recruitment campaign" And also KAOS please do not use the Bible as evidence as it is blatant you are no theologian and twist scripture with you foolish atheist ways because all you want to do is avoid the truth at all costs.I.E. NOT meant as an insult. Just the hard facts comspiracy theory boy. Look a U.F.O.! PEACE.
Please don't claim that this never happened as it has been well established in several of the criminal cases against the molesting priests. If you look back a ways in this thread, you'll see where I provided links to news stories about this.
In fact, the priest suspected of molesting the greatest number of boys was moved to the Vatican, putting him out of the reach of American prosecutors. This is grossly immoral and unconscionable.
YES! If you were a real vitner, you'ed do just that and burn out the entire field, as you know, infection and diseases left in the corner of a field, will eventually reinfect the crop time and time again until there's no goodness left in any grape at all! And as far as making fun of you is concerned, what the fuck are you on, Morphine! I certainly don't think that systematic organised child abuse is something to make joke's about! You're blatently making paedophile pathetic excuse's, which are classic divertive tactict's in the Ministery Of Defence Dog-Ma, and believe me, i broke my S.A.S. dad to bit's and piece's just looking in his eye, even though he went to malaya in 1942 for Wayko Burma Style training, and you and you're reverse psychology Freemason dogma shit is the fucking joke! So where have i written the joke???? where's the punchline???? Unless you're talking about you're Vatican's Condemnation of Jeanntte's, the Spannish type '$', that are known as May Polis, and you're Freemason Fama Fraturnitatis deal with the Europe and U.S. Military's Punch and Judy is the Football for the A.D.H.D, Assult Dad's Home Dromedary 'Ass' of a Wife Beating Club, so that DAD can fuck all the kid's for a Dollar, and make the daughter's their Scapegoat's in the all the Public Record's system's in Europe! A man made church has no God, only the left hemisphere Super Id, ie; Munchasen Syndrome, for short! And here's one for you to work out; who'se daddy would name their son a 'Nanny goat's Pleasure'? Answer: 'Zeigmond Freude' in German, got it yet? still jealous of a female shaking her Kundalini, then!
Nyx is upon us once again,
Let's throw a party,
Light a few fire's,
And make some profit,
Because the truth Dawn'd on everyone again!
So come on, WHY does the Vatican hide their paedophile Priest's around the globe then?? THERE'S NO LOGICAL EXCUSE WHATSOEVER, you just can't admit you're just an organised paedophile ring, dealing in drug's, money laundering, and beside's prostitution racket's RUN UNDER THE VERY NOSE'S OF THE JUDICAIL SYSTEM'S, is the BIGGEST ART SCAM via the German SS Freemason/Skull and Bone's Society's ketamine Experiment on Children that began in 1919! Talk about Global Warming, it's not the planet that's coming to the boiling point, it's YOUR FEAR of the imminant explosive bomshell that's going to explode into the Public Pavement about the your real Vatican's Rat-Singing War Tactict's, and underground Global paedophille ring's with the Military's protection! Now that ain't no joke, is it!
It is a POSTER, that's all. Can you handle that? Or are too small brained to comprehend that?
By the way, you don't happen to live in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsylvania, do you?
"Catholicism is RIGHT, in the Bible it says the true church will face persecution so thank you for just affirming Catholicism is the one true faith."
Even IF we accept the Bible as the "word of God" (a HUGE if), it has apparantly escaped your attention that the Catholic Church is far from the only church which has experienced persecution over the centuries.
I'm puzzling over how you see people rightly criticizing the Catholic Church for COVERING up pedophilia (a crime) as "persecution."
If YOUR child was molested by a priest, would you refrain from reporting that crime to the police on the grounds that it would be "persecuting" the church to do so? Yes or no.
"When you persecute the Church though you UNKNOWINGLY say "all priests molest boys" this bible is lies, etc... persecuting the church, which is what I was talking about, not a priest who got what he deserved"
Please show where I've ever said that ALL priests molest boys.
Clue: I never said any such thing.
"Also unless you literally have seen these "cover ups etc..." then you have no authority on this consiparcy theory topic personally you are assuming what is not granted an illogical error."
Please take a moment out of your undoubtedly busy schedule to look at some of my earlier postings in this thread. You'll see where I give my sources for the information that members of the Catholic Church's hierarchy covered up for some of the molester priests.
The fact that YOU are unaware of this evidence does NOT prove that it doesn't exist.
By the way, your notion that if a person hasn't personally seen something, then it can't possibly exist is highly irrational. Have you been to India? No? Then how can you be sure there really is such a place? Get the point?
Fianlly to this comment that Cranky said "Please show where I've ever said that ALL priests molest boys.Clue: I never said any such thing." Try not to take everyhting so literal. There is no need to try and read between the lines. I'm not using codes so when I generalize a statement like that I am simply trying to make a point in the short amount of time I have alloted to myself to type to you on this website. Hope you have a great day! Peace and many Blessings from God, and may The Blessed Virgin protect her sons Church during all its troubled time. "God"
Uh, yes, I know EXACTLY what "yellow journalism" means and I didn't link to the National Enquirer or anything like that. You would have known that if you actually looked.
"While they (the priests) may have resided in their respected Churches at a particular moment in time about 6 months to a year ago the Church not only fired them telling them they were not allowed to ever be a priest deacon etc... but had the authorities arrest them and had them face criminal prosecution."
Not true. I'm not aware of any case where Church officials themselves reported child molestation on the part of priests to the authorities. If you know of such, please give us links to reliable press reports about it. If you look at the links I gave you, you'd see where the priest who seems to have been the worst violator was relocated to the Vatican so as to take him away from U.S. police. That is indefensible.
As I see it, you have your conclusion already drawn and NO facts will change your mind. That's unfortunate; the Catholic Church DID cover up for the actions of some priests. Pretending it didn't happen won't change reality or help the victims get past what happened to them. Your concern should be for THEM, not for making excuses for the Church.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week525/cover.html
http://caribbeanhindu.net/Catholic_Priests.htm
http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/207489
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/14/i_ins.01.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/2007/09/sd_diocese_settles_sexual_abus.html -
Now lets talk about YOUR websites.
1.Skeptic Forums is not a legitimate source to site MR. Media Guy. With all due respect to him, these people are like KAOS if he did heroine and smoked crack 50 times a day, excuse the harsh kind-of anagolgy.
2.You nalso cited a source "harpers" I believe it is. But on that same site it says Pope John Paul the 2nd (this was an old internet site from before he left this planet)said the priests in these scandals are in fact sinners and "regretted the dark shadow of supsicion" this has caused to be put directly over the Catholic Church. It also mentions how The Catholic Church has paid money saying that "While this is a regrettable thing to happen and we know money can not stop the hurt from these families we hope that it will help, even if it's just a little"
3.In your other cited sources the dates are circa 2003 and I'm sorry to say there isa thing called "time" that actually passes and well to be quite honest as is shown by just my five (out of nine) sources that a lot HAS changed since 2003.
Hope to hear back from you! "GOD"
"GOD"
In the article your first link goes to, there's NOTHING that says that the Church took any measures to inform law enforcement about the molesting priests. Yes, it says the Church apologized to victims AFTER IT WAS SUED AND SETTLED WITH THEM. Big whoop. In case you don't know, an apology is often specified as part of the settlement in a lawsuit.
From your second link:
"Since January, Cardinal Law, the nation's senior Catholic leader, has apologized twice for allowing Father Geoghan to be placed in a parish in 1984 when the cardinal knew of his pedophile past."
Hmm, so an upper-level Church person (the Cardinal) covered up for a molesting priest TWICE, by his own admission. In case this is lost on you, this proves MY point, not yours.
Your third link is an article about the Pope condemning abuse of children by priests but says NOTHING about the Church having cooperated with law enforcement to bring those priests to justice prior to the law suits brought by the victims.
From your fourth link:
"Boston's Cardinal Bernard Law is the most senior U.S. prelate. He and other church leaders knew about Geoghan's pattern of sexual abuse, but kept it secret, hoping to solve it, and moved him from parish to parish for years."
The fifth link starts off with:
"The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego has reached a $198.125 million settlement with 144 people who were sexually abused by Catholic priests and church workers."
Since you seem to have missed it, my point (which I thought was very clear) was that the Catholic Church had knowledge of priests molesting boys and DID NOT inform law enforcement about those crimes. One of your own links says precisely that.
Here was the sequence of events.
1: SOME priests molest boys, sometimes many boys and sometimes over a period of many years. Church officials, including Cardinal Law, knew about this but did NOTHING to stop it or turn the priests into the police.
2: Some of the victims, now grown-up, file lawsuits against the Church.
3: The Church says it will fight the lawsuits, which it claims are baseless.
4: The victims do not give in and continue to pursue the suits.
5: In the fact of the evidence, the Church settles the cases for millions of dollars.
5: Then and only then does the Church apologize to the victims (which it had previously claimed were lying) to save face with the public.
You seem to think that the Catholic Church deserves to be praised for apologizing to people who were hurt and exploited by priests after years of calling them liars. I don't.
To turn to "Mikey" for a moment, how exactly was I "dominated"?
I am talking about the right now in my comments though while you seem to be stuck in the past. Here is an excerpt from PBS: "Cardinal BERNARD LAW: I made a mistake in assigning John Geoghan. I regret that assignment.
SEVERSON: There were other mistakes. Within the last few weeks, the diocese has released the names of 80 other priests accused of sexual abuse. What was once a closely kept secret within the Church has now become an explosive issue -- one that threatens the tenure of Cardinal Law, a senior leader in the Church and a friend of the pope.
Cardinal LAW: My apology to them and to their family and particularly those who were abused in assignments, which I made, comes from a grieving heart.
3: The Church says it will fight the lawsuits, which it claims are baseless.
4: The victims do not give in and continue to pursue the suits.
5: Then and only then does the Church apologize to the victims (which it had previously claimed were lying) to save face with the public."
How exactly does that disprove your theory? WELL, it never said once that I remember that the Church fought the lawsuits. Where, from what LEGITIMATE site did you get that info? It never said in any yours or my sites that the Church said ANYONE was lying about being molested. What the sites DID say was that a Cardinal gave a priest a second chance. sorry for all of you non-christains out there but Jesus told us to give second chances and to forgive on another. His apostles even preached in Acts that Jesus was the Messiah and gave them second- chances to become Christians. Christianity IS about second chances. These sites of mine only go on to say that "the diocese has released the names of 80 other priests accused of sexual abuse.: Right there, right there it says that The Church has given over the priests to the authorities. This is also what my sites from PBS,Japan today, and sandiego news say started this whole "scandal" idea. When they realeased the news that Dioceses were now giving away names of the criminals and handing them over to the authorities the press had a field day. And as all press does, to make money they blew everyhting out of proprption. They made a mountain out of a molehill. I'm not saying the priests weren't wrong in molesting innocent children. they were wrong, but the Church gave away those priests to the authorities. The Church did nothing wrong. They only did what they thought was best for the Church. They gave the priests a second chance and when they failed that 2nd chance the Church handed them over to the authorities. THE cHURCH DID NOTHING WRONG AND NO I DON'T THINK THAT "the Catholic Church deserves to be praised for apologizing to people who were hurt by priests ." I JUST FEEL THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU need to calm dalm down for a second and rationally think things over. The Church did NOTHING wrong. The PRIEST DID. Not the Church.