I'm not afraid of homosexuals or mad at homosexuals (except those who abuse children) and I'm against homosexual acts. I'm a Catholic and I know how to think for myself. Being against contraception really isn't that bizarre; most people used to be against it at the beginning of the last century before most of the Protestant churches accepted contraception. The Freemasons are violently opposed to the Catholic Church - they're her enemy, in fact. I don't know what kind of New Testament Ka~Os has but I don't ever remember reading Jesus Christ saying "All is spiritual." Anyway...hopefully God will save his soul someday. Adam, I feel your pain - it does seem like the world hates the Catholic Church. That shouldn't be a big surprise, though, because Satan is the prince of this world.

To all the Catholic haters...keep hating. Because your lives must truly be as empty as your postings suggest. True Catholics (not the paedophile element of the Church) couldn't give a toss about what your saying. All you'll get is our pity. And though it'll really rub the salt in the wounds, we'll probably even pray for you. Be mature and think beyond your own little uninformed brains. Because frankly, your irrational rants will never affect the Roman Catholic Church

Man, only because it is a religious, and furthermore, Catholic thing you have to tear it down. You people are bcoming prophecies, where people will have no respect for God and the Divine, but rather will seek carnal pleasure and such...
A Generation of sin is what you all are...

Would it be something ridicoulizing the church, then you'd be all happy, or would it have been some poster of some nude girl posing as what, Trinity, and then you wudnt have given a shhhh...
You hate it because God is present on it. and in fact, that poster is really awesome.

And it is not meant to put the priests as matrix people, are you so dumb to believe so? It is only to attract people, to make it look cool, and the purpose was achieved. It was not meant to be some sort of analogy of Matrix.. where is the common sense???

The catholic Chruch has contirbuted more to over populating this world then all the honeymoon nights combined. They also held back advancing medical science by over 100 years because they condemed and did not permit examing of the dead.
All they teach is that suffering is a blessing. yeah right, suffering never did any good what so ever.

Exodus 13:15(KJV) "I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem."

Exodus 34:19 "All that openeth the matrix is mine".

Numbers 18:15 "Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine".

First off, Joshua, turn off the Caps Lock key, OK?

Secondly, what you're saying in defense of the Catholic Church is factually incorrect.

The Church actively covered up for many of the molester priests, moving them to other dioceses to hide them from the law. One, the alleged worst of the bunch, was moved to Rome where he is currently in the Pope's Inner Circle.

In other circumstances, if this didn't involved a powerful, influential Church, this would be prosecuted as obstruction of justice. In any case, it's just plain disgusting and morally wrong. It is NOT defensible, especially for a Church which claims to speak directly for God.

The Catholic Church make's fake Saint's out of Scapegoat's via their underground global Freemason/Skull and Bone's Society's, running fake historical association's that are employed within Public civil Servie's, ie; American Civil War Society for one, and cover up the Vatican's 'Condemnation Of Jeannette', Witch Hammer Policy, by messing about with the public record's of witnesses to their peadophile antic's, simply because the name 'Jeannette' in Hebrew mean's John Of the Summer, ie; John The Baptist, or rather, from the Book Of Revelation itself, a Tomboy with the spirit of a man called, so called The Spirit And The Bride, because the Vatican hate's the fact that a women know's what 'Jesus christ', and 'Christ Jesus', mean's in the realm of their reverse psychology for the 4th Reich!!! The Vatican has no foundation's in the Religion whatsoever on this planet's TURF it's sitting on, and the Vatican only exist's for it's own selfish greed in an international political conspiracy to conquer and dominate the world, and that's a fact! How can you declair to translate anything logically if you can't decipher which is the physical body of Christ, and which is the spritual body of Jesus, from a simple statement about a Spirit and Bride being ONE single female, then you have no idea why Welsh is Hebrew in reverse, and 'Jeannette' in French is 'Mohammed' in Isreal... Ain't that a Terror to your Live Coal of a Conscience, or have you got a gender problem because your pitrutitry gland was burned out before you were 5 year's old, and you've still only got half a brain to decipher your own bollock's with just like Alzheimer shaking brain's sHitler had! Did anyone ever tell you that 'Paganism' over the age of 5 year's of age, mean's Psychotic Schitzophrenia!... and you don't know why thousand's of Catholic priest's ARE PAEDOPHILE'S!!! Why don't you Pole-ish your pineal gland, then you might wake up to your shit faced self one day, and know what Shave Yourself mean's to a girl called MEDUSA $!!!

Oh, by the way, the Vatican's Ratzinger ain't no Pied Piper, and certainly dosn't know how to WRAP A GIRDLE ROUNDABOUT THE EARTH on any Lay Line conjunction on this planet, even if he had a sex change, and pulled 3 million water mellon's (PILES in the De Medici = Medical Code Book, and we all know why!), out of his backside! Dosn't 'NEAH' in the Bible mean 'Shaking Of The Earth' in Shakespeare/Spur-Shaft, the emblom of the World Health Organisation, ie; the Cadaseus = $, and didn't 'Obed Dollah' make a Sterling Silver Press Plate, still kept under the Queen of England's Crown Jewels, in the Tower of London today, and watched over night and day by the Yeomanry Guard like the Prisoner of the winding Sheet (Roll of a Book = $ = May Poler = Frohlich/Spring), well before the 3rd Reich faked the vatican's 'Doller' in their fake America! The Vatican has to learn, ther's no Tollerance for child abuse anywhere on this planet, only Stockholm Syndrome, and that make's them prisoner's to themselve's, which is the LORE of this TURF, no matter what LAWLESS shit any half brain can invent! This Earth is Poling itself, just like it did in the time of the Mayan's, because greed destroy's itself in the end, and as it's written in the Bible, the 4th Rich is in the mind, not in your bank ballence!

'$' Here's Birth-Spin syuneasthesis, ie; The Nativity, now go and find a lay line conjunction and spin like a Suffi and see if you can Draw Up your skull and Bone's out of your Ass... don't call me Ruth!!!

Joshua, I'm beginning to believe that you are attempting to be humorous, as your postings are so over-the-top.

For the record, I made NOTHING up. Not only has there been more than a "few" pedophile priests, the Catholic Church hierarchy HAS gone out of its way to cover that fact up, including, as I said, moving perhaps the most egregious offender to Rome in an apparant attempt to avoid having him go on trial. The fact that the Church tried to move priests to avoid prosecution has been cited in several of the lawsuits against it.

As I said, under any other circumstance involving a less politically powerful organization than the Catholic Church, that would constitute "obstruction of justice."

Even if, as you say, there are examples of clergy from other denominations who have engaged in similar criminal activity, so what? Since when do two wrongs make a right? That would only mean that those people should also be indicted, tried and convicted along with the priests.

I am sincerely baffled as to why you would want to make excuses for the molestation of children. I fail to see anything "Christian" in that dismissive attitude.

Please stop with the personal insults, by the way. They contribute nothing to the discussion.

Joshua Acosta said:

"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.

Joshua said:

"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.

Joshua quoted:

"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.

That's right, Joshua, I DIDN'T respond to you calling me a "Tool of Satan." Know why? It's too irrational and irrelevant to respond to.

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.

Well that was just entertaining as all heck. I've taken the steps of removing and banning this most recent participant in our little family squabble.

I feel a little bad about the Joshua situation. Did I kind of goad him on there? That wasn't my intent but looking back on it, it's possible that I was poking him with a metaphorical stick.

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.

hey everybody,
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!

Andy James said:

"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.

Thank you for the warm welcome!Sice I agrre with all of you opinions and their are currently no Caholics arguing with us can we continue where we left off? I understand why you woul think that he was exhibiting delusions of grandeur and maybe he was, but if I remembveer corectly(and who knows I could be wrong about this)but I have heard people say we are all a tool of God if we are hsi children and believe in him. That person-my preacgher, told me that if we love God then we all cabn speak for him. By plantng seed s in people to become future Christians etc. And weel we can't know what he said now because he got his entries basically dzstroyed but I think he said something along the lnes of " As for me and God we're redy. Whch if I was writing it would mean lke (and I say this because he called you a tool of satan.) which was very amusing at the tim-I think I laughed at that one.Anywy back to the topic for m e it would mean "Sice youre abvouisly a tool of satan working agaist god I have god's back and with him i kan do anything.Do you think hat is possible I mean does that make sense to you?
Brring it on Catholics!

You guys suck!Joshua was right in calling you a tool of Satan. Have fun in The eternal fiery pits of Hell.

Well, you just can't argue with "logic" like that, Protestant Hater. *laugh*

For the record, I am neither Protestant nor a Catholic.

Oh? Well ATHEIST then you can cetaintly count on spending your eternity burning

I hate all of you

No, Atheists can certainly count on spending all eternity not existing.

HA! That was pretty clever Charybodis

Protestant Hater said:

"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.

Cranky how have they not kicked you off this server yet? You know you are the most negative, piece of crap person I have ever had the displeasure to type to. Get a life!

Rather than refute anything I've said, you chose to lob a personal attack. That speaks volumes.

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?

What are you saying? I have not heard a single word that you have said about Catholicism. By the way I'm Protestant so what now?

Well, gee, this discussion has deteriorated since last I checked in on it. Joshua was vitrolic and somewhat (OK more than "somewhat") incoherent, but at least he was trying to talk about an actual, real moral problem. Whereas IHateCrankyMediaGuy's and Protestant Hater's comments could pretty much be summarized as "You suck!" "No, YOU suck!" "No, YOU suck!" "I don't suck -- you suck!" And so on. Way to maturely discuss an issue, guys.

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.

Comments: Page 4 of 13 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›