I am a Ghost
New Member
Protestant and Free.
Atheist and free. Vastly preferable.
Protestant and Free.
Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?Your arguments here are weak. You want to:
1. Think that the newspaper is at fault for reporting the news.
Believe that there is a conspiracy against the Church.
There may be, but there is a conspiracy INSIDE the Church which is hurting it far more. There is no proper or improper time to talk about these things.
2. You want to seek sympathy for this man that caused emotional pain to many children in a calculated fashion.
There is a healing process and part of it is confronting the abuser. It's for the victim's good. If you want to see it as punishment, that's fine too. It can serve as a warning to others.
3. It happened a long time ago.
It did and it has affected the victims their whole lives.
4. Again with Easter.
Easter in the Christian viewpoint is about a sacrifice for sin. It is also a time of rebirth. It's symbolic that the Christian event is associated with this Pagan event. In either case, there is not a better time. There needs to be a death of this conspiratorial policy in the Church, so that the image can be reborn.
And that isn't likely to happen because the Pope doesn't seem to believe in what he represents. He is another powerful man clinging to power. The idea of him being infallible is completely lost now, if you could believe it in the first place.
yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.And this that some people join the catholic church with hidden agendas and bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.Nothing can be done about it except expelling those people once they are uncovered.Do you want church to perform a narcoanalysis on every priest candidate?Its their own responsiblity if they lie to people and pretend to be a person they are not.Agreed.
It's simply a breeding ground and safe house for pedos and perverts.
Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?
I dont defend anyone,i hate paedophiles and i think that physical castration would be the best solution,lets castrate them,give them some counselling in the hospital afterwards and we have human rights fixed.And money saved.I dont believe in conspiracies but i believe in agendas.Ive watched like the coverage about the war in Iraq was twisted because Ruper Murdoch owns The Sun and The Times and wanted to buy Fox tv station the same time and Colin Powell's son was in some coucil responsilble for allowing this buy etc.etc.blah blah so much for "freedom of the press".I just wonder why "The New York Times"wasnt so concerned when this NAMBLA guy was appointed as an american ambassador in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein(i cant remember now).Well i didnt hear about any protests then.Double standards much?
yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.So here is your answer.And this that some people join the catholic church with bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.Nothing can be done about it except expelling those people once they are uncovered.Do you want church to perform a narcoanalysis on every priest candidate?Its their own responsiblity if they lie to people and pretend to be a person they are not.
Well i think that your points are weak because:It didnt happen now-it happen long time ago so why it is brought up now?
I dont defend anyone,i hate paedophiles and i think that physical castration would be the best solution,lets castrate them,give them some counselling in the hospital afterwards and we have human rights fixed.And money saved.I dont believe in conspiracies but i believe in agendas.Ive watched like the coverage about the war in Iraq was twisted because Ruper Murdoch owns The Sun and The Times and wanted to buy Fox tv station the same time and Colin Powell's son was in some coucil responsilble for allowing this buy etc.etc.blah blah so much for "freedom of the press".I just wonder why "The New York Times"wasnt so concerned when this NAMBLA guy was appointed as an american ambassador in Luxemburg or Lichtenstein(i cant remember now).Well i didnt hear about any protests then.Double standards much?
3th-victims arent dead but the the guy who was accussed about it is dead.He died 4th months after the letter to Ratzinger was written,so what Ratzinger could do about it?4th-i dont believe in conspiracies lol,i was just disgusted in this cheap sensations-style,looking for sensation,dragging Ratzinger's name into it coz it looks good on the headline"Pope involved blah blah"but after reading article-his so-called "invovlment" is the case of answering the letter etc.etc.5th lol"Die Eristische Dialektik "by Schopehauer is my favorite book too but i didnt attack the questioner(arg.ad personam and ad hominem-people often mistake them)but i didnt use any of them,i just asked him a few questions.But what is the real question?Here are few articles which appeared out of the blue,about a case that is long gone and the guy accused is dead so he cant answer the questions.So?I would understand if something happened just now,some case of molesting happend few days ago and is being covered then ok,then those articles would seem logical,but this...looks to me like looking for cheap sensations and good sounding headlines like:"Paedophile in Vatican"."Pope protecting paedophile"blah and blah.What a cheap journalism.Which exhibits all the classic means of avoiding facing up to the question.
1) it's an old story, not relevant now.
2) The victims won't want to rake it over again.
3) The victims are dead, so there's no point.
4) It's a conspiracy to discredit, by people with a malicious agenda.
5) Attacking the Questioner (by associating them with disreputable people/beliefs) in order to distract attention from the Question.
I agree with this.And i too dislike those pratices,i think its done to avoid scandal and doing the damage to Church image.But it only destroys church credibility.I think they should be expelled immediately,and tried by a civil court(not church court).Moving to another Parish, hushing up those who complain, hiding behind the authority of the Institution. This is not simply about reprehensible dereliction of duty of care, it is criminal actions by those who were trusted to care, and should be tried in Courts of Law like anyone else.
???9/11?What it has to do with Catholicism?JoanOfArc, you reminded me of one of my former Brazilian fellow students who claimed that Catholithism was the best religion after 9/11.
?And what did they say?Obviously everyone thinks that his religion is the best,nothing wrong with that.Of course other fellow Christians challenged him.
Which exhibits all the classic means of avoiding facing up to the question.
1) it's an old story, not relevant now.
2) The victims won't want to rake it over again.
3) The victims are dead, so there's no point.
4) It's a conspiracy to discredit, by people with a malicious agenda.
5) Attacking the Questioner (by associating them with disreputable people/beliefs) in order to distract attention from the Question.
Truth is Paedophiles are attracted to the Church because it gives them access to potential victims, AND because the Church has done very little to effectively hinder their activities. Moving to another Parish, hushing up those who complain, hiding behind the authority of the Institution. This is not simply about reprehensible dereliction of duty of care, it is criminal actions by those who were trusted to care, and should be tried in Courts of Law like anyone else.
Not quite. Other cases arose for the sin of the Protestant Church concerning pedophiles finding refuge in youth groups and church services for children. Also fraudulent means of collecting funds through the guise of tithe and offering has soiled the reputation of many a mega church.Protestant and Free.
yeah blah blah.Catholic church was the only church which during the apartheid in RSA allowed black and white people participate in the mass together while your protestant churches didnt allow it and segregated people.And this that some people join the catholic church with hidden agendas and bad intentions has nothing to do with the Church.
???9/11?What it has to do with Catholicism?
Top Roman Catholic officials are rubbing salt "into the already deep wounds of those who have been victimized and disillusioned by the Catholic church" by criticizing those speaking out about the Vatican, said Mary Guentner, a spokeswoman for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
Guentner, who says she was abused by a nun in a different school, said victims should be praised, thanked and welcomed but instead have been vilified, mischaracterized and insulted for speaking out.
"It's ludicrous to claim that these hundreds of once-trusting, devout Catholics are somehow conspiring to hurt the world's most powerful religious figure," she said.
Thanks for your clarification JOA
The reason it's an issue now is plain. Complaints about abuse years ago were ignored. Consequently the abuse has continued to the present day. The question is Why?
More precicely - how was this allowed to happen, why was action not taken sooner, and why are those who ask for the matter to be taken seriously being attacked by the Vatican..
From a SNAP statement reported in the Independent (29/3/10)
It's true that abuse has and does occur in many hierarchical institutions, some secular, some religious. To accuse one should not distract from the other. ALL should be accountable. Unfortunately, in the matter under debate here, those responsible appear to be trying to deflect criticism by denigrating the victims, yet another abuse of power, and showing a deep unwillingness to accept responsibility, or to accept the seriousness of the damage done.
Well i dont think so.This is what ive found in eng:News from Father ScavizziBrilliant point, even though the Catholic Church itself did permit racist ideologies back in the day. Pope Pius also allowed the ruthless slaughtering of Jews during the Holocaust by his own lack of acknowledgment.