Vatican edict in 1997 rejected calls to report priests who abused- Irish Church
#31
(01-20-2011, 11:08 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 10:26 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Like Harlequin King's beloved Utopian fantasies that are highly orchestrated Communist Inspired agit-prop.

Eh? What are you on about? I've been called many things, but inspired by Communism isn't one of them. Explain yourself.

Wow HK's a commie I never would have guessed. :laughing:
Reply
#32
(01-20-2011, 11:56 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 03:01 AM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote: I suppose it's possible that the NYTimes has a deliberate, perverse policy of undermining the Church and employs the disinformation techniques of an intelligence agency to carry it out, but this oft-repeated charge seems to depend entirely on inference. Where are the Wikileaks, for instance, that give anyone a basis for alleging that the Times has fabricated evidence against the Church? It's natural for a Catholic to be upset at the Church's being brought into ill-repute by scandal, but at some point, one has to face facts and stop trying to shoot the messenger.

NYT's unreliability and bias is well-documented.  Are you actually being ironic?

I'm flattered that you credit me with the capacity for such subtlety, but no, I am not being ironic. I don't dispute for one minute that the Times has a somewhat liberal bias, but that's neither here nor there. What seems to be being alleged is that they have an editorial policy of undermining Roman Catholicism generally and the Vatican in particular, and that the evidence of this is that they regularly publish articles that negatively affect the Church's reputation. But there are all kinds of entities whose faults they expose with equal zeal, and who have nothing in common with each other except being powerful. To deny that the Times' (and any number of other news outlets') coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Church is based on a firm bedrock of fact is just silly, at this point. In other words, it might work to accuse the Times of engaging in a witch hunt if they had not exposed a bona fide witch, but they have. The case against the Church hierarchy is a slam dunk. The sooner the Church finishes cleaning house, the sooner we can all live our lives untroubled by this filth. It's that simple.
Reply
#33
(01-20-2011, 11:54 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Actually, it's more likely for a person to be preyed upon by their psychologist, teacher or policeman than a priest. 

But in the final analysis, this is completely irrelevant, because the pretense on which the Church operates is extraordinary, and you actually undermine the authority of the Church by suggesting that analogies between priests and psychologists, teachers, and policemen are appropriate. If the Church is what it claims to be, then priests are an entirely different order of being from, and have much more profound responsibilities than, any of these other types of people.
Reply
#34
(01-20-2011, 11:54 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Perhaps you're assuming that all of the accusations are credible. I assure you they are not.

I am sure that there have been opportunistic, false charges made against priests during this scandal, but there is no compelling reason to think that the scandal is fundamentally a fabrication by enemies of the Church. And when I say, "no compelling reason," I mean that there is simply no credible evidence that it is so. Notice that the Church itself is not arguing that the scandal is a fabrication. The Church continues to engage in a lot of clumsy damage control, but it does not dispute the basic charge that there has been an epidemic of sexual abuse of minors by priests. What it seems to equivocate about is the degree of the hierarchy's complicity in fostering and prolonging it. Unfortunately, however, every new denial of malfeasance is met by an exposure of damning evidence. The now-predictable dynamic goes like this: A) newspaper reports that Church official handled allegations of abuse poorly; B) Church denies that this is the case; C) newspaper replies by producing document permitting no doubt that its original account was accurate.
Reply
#35
(01-20-2011, 11:37 PM)Baskerville Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 11:08 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 10:26 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Like Harlequin King's beloved Utopian fantasies that are highly orchestrated Communist Inspired agit-prop.

Eh? What are you on about? I've been called many things, but inspired by Communism isn't one of them. Explain yourself.

Wow HK's a commie I never would have guessed. :laughing:

The Civil Rights movement was a Communist deal and you lament the fact that the Church wasn't involved in it, the Church knew better, but that didn't stop homosexual enablers like Cardinal Cushing from getting involved in it.  I'd say that begins to qualify you as a fellow traveler.
Reply
#36
(01-21-2011, 03:51 AM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 11:56 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 03:01 AM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote: I suppose it's possible that the NYTimes has a deliberate, perverse policy of undermining the Church and employs the disinformation techniques of an intelligence agency to carry it out, but this oft-repeated charge seems to depend entirely on inference. Where are the Wikileaks, for instance, that give anyone a basis for alleging that the Times has fabricated evidence against the Church? It's natural for a Catholic to be upset at the Church's being brought into ill-repute by scandal, but at some point, one has to face facts and stop trying to shoot the messenger.

NYT's unreliability and bias is well-documented.  Are you actually being ironic?

I'm flattered that you credit me with the capacity for such subtlety, but no, I am not being ironic. I don't dispute for one minute that the Times has a somewhat liberal bias, but that's neither here nor there. What seems to be being alleged is that they have an editorial policy of undermining Roman Catholicism generally and the Vatican in particular, and that the evidence of this is that they regularly publish articles that negatively affect the Church's reputation. But there are all kinds of entities whose faults they expose with equal zeal, and who have nothing in common with each other except being powerful. To deny that the Times' (and any number of other news outlets') coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Church is based on a firm bedrock of fact is just silly, at this point. In other words, it might work to accuse the Times of engaging in a witch hunt if they had not exposed a bona fide witch, but they have. The case against the Church hierarchy is a slam dunk. The sooner the Church finishes cleaning house, the sooner we can all live our lives untroubled by this filth. It's that simple.

When the whole thing got underway again, as a result of ACLU operative, Jeff Anderson leaking the story about Wisconsin priest who was sexually abusing deaf children, they used it in an attempt to get the ball rolling and it was tremendously successful.  Of course, it didn't matter that they didn't have their facts straight.

But this is Pinch Suzlberger's MO at the Old York times.  They'll run a fawning obituary about Allen Ginsburg, but then, this....
Reply
#37
(01-21-2011, 04:03 AM)WilfredLeblanc Wrote:
(01-20-2011, 11:54 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Actually, it's more likely for a person to be preyed upon by their psychologist, teacher or policeman than a priest. 

But in the final analysis, this is completely irrelevant, because the pretense on which the Church operates is extraordinary, and you actually undermine the authority of the Church by suggesting that analogies between priests and psychologists, teachers, and policemen are appropriate. If the Church is what it claims to be, then priests are an entirely different order of being from, and have much more profound responsibilities than, any of these other types of people.

Indeed, that's part of the reason why your children are safer with Catholic priests than they are with cops, teachers, shrinks and others, and the fact that you're missing is that the vast majority of these problems can be explained by the intrusion in the Catholic Church's business by certain professionals with agendas at odds with the Church's mission, like what happened in California with William Coulson's effective destruction of some women's lives by those same mentalities and techniques which are a definite factor in sexual abuse.  http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar74.htm

If you want to know who the culprits are, look to the Kinsey Institute and get all of the clergy inspired by these types out of the Church to begin with.
Reply
#38
(01-21-2011, 09:46 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: The Civil Rights movement was a Communist deal and you lament the fact that the Church wasn't involved in it, the Church knew better, but that didn't stop homosexual enablers like Cardinal Cushing from getting involved in it.  I'd say that begins to qualify you as a fellow traveler.

On that topic, a lot of posters provided counter-examples. Are you a segregationist?
Reply
#39
(01-21-2011, 11:20 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(01-21-2011, 09:46 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: The Civil Rights movement was a Communist deal and you lament the fact that the Church wasn't involved in it, the Church knew better, but that didn't stop homosexual enablers like Cardinal Cushing from getting involved in it.  I'd say that begins to qualify you as a fellow traveler.

On that topic, a lot of posters provided counter-examples. Are you a segregationist?

That whole thing was Communist inspired from top to bottom.  Communists like to exploit causes that resonate with people's emotions to obtain their longer term political aims and cultural changes.

Incidentally, whatever you think about Segregation, the South didn't experience the riots of sixty eight that destroyed old neighborhoods and many businesses,and I think it's safe to say that the Civil Rights movement actually worsened conditions for blacks across the board, but by the time people start figuring that out, the Communists will probably be in power and writing the textbooks... oh... wait... they are in power and writing the textbooks.

And in regard to segregation, I don't think you need a law to enforce it.  People naturally coalesce within their own ethnic and racial groups and I don't have a problem with that.  I think it's pretty cool.  Only liberals get bent out of shape about that stuff and want everyone to be treated equally while ignoring the natural conditions of human societies.
Reply
#40
Rosa Parks was trained at the Highlander School, and the whole thing was orchestrated from the beginning, and no one wouldn't have cared about her if she weren't a secretary at the NAACP.

And the Scotsboro Boys languished in prison long after the Communists got what they wanted from them... so, Communists find real injustices and they exploit them for political purposes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)