Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Per poster’s request



Skip to comments.

Nifonging the Catholic Church
me ^ | April 18, 2010 | vanity

Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne

I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.

Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.

I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!

Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!

Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!

What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?

Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?

Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: denialnotrivernegypt; excuses; falseaccusations; koolaidcatholics; moralrot; moredeflection; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 2,761-2,775 next last
Comment #301 Removed by Moderator

Comment #302 Removed by Moderator

To: Natural Law
Lemley Hokanson was 14 when the alleged abuse started…

14 yo? Then it's not abuse, it's RAPE according to the presbyterians on this thread.

303 posted on 04/20/2010 8:47:36 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

Comment #304 Removed by Moderator

Comment #305 Removed by Moderator

To: Natural Law

It’s clear that the presbyterians — and probably every church— have a number of these cases. This is not to say that two wrongs make a right, because that’s evil.

It is, however, a clear indication that those who are waging a presbyterian jihad against the Catholic Church for the child abuse scandal ought to pay much much more attention to the suffering children and evil pastors in their OWN church.


306 posted on 04/20/2010 8:50:19 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

Comment #307 Removed by Moderator

To: Natural Law
Asheville Citizen-Times is not allowed at all. Be sure to check the copyright restrictions before posting articles as replies.
308 posted on 04/20/2010 8:52:46 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #309 Removed by Moderator

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"The defense of the indefensible is limitless around here."

How much more do you want me to post. I have an extensive dossier on the "transgressions" by Presbyterian clergy that I can give you an opportunity to defend.

310 posted on 04/20/2010 8:56:38 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Your posts are being removed for lack of sufficient source reference to confirm copyrights. Be sure to include links to your sources and use excerpts where appropriate according to the Free Republic rules.
311 posted on 04/20/2010 8:57:17 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

You know best about these matters, but all material was taken from public domain websites that cited the original sources.


312 posted on 04/20/2010 9:00:41 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

All of them?


313 posted on 04/20/2010 9:02:09 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Yes. Copyright violations are extremely serious.


314 posted on 04/20/2010 9:03:26 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Okay, so each quote from a published source MUST hsve a link?


315 posted on 04/20/2010 9:06:21 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

Yes - or if it is not online, then a reference to a magazine, newspaper, book, etc. so that the moderators can keep the forum free of copyright violations.


316 posted on 04/20/2010 9:09:03 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Okay. I’ll remember that.


317 posted on 04/20/2010 9:11:11 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; Natural Law

So, if Natural Law gives the source for the articles s/he posted, and they are not on the copyright list, they can be put back up?


318 posted on 04/20/2010 9:14:48 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne; Natural Law
Yes, he will need to source each one according to the FR rules on copyrights. Some sources cannot be mentioned at all, some just link and title, some require excerpts and some may be quoted fully.

If the source is a third party, e.g. a blog quoting an article, the rule nevertheless applies to the original source.

For instance, a blog might have an entire AP article which is a violation of copyright because AP must be excerpted. Sourcing the article to the blog without excerpting the AP article would be a copyright violation by FR rules.

319 posted on 04/20/2010 9:20:10 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Thank you. I do not want to be overly persistent, but if the AP logo is anywhere on the web page, it MUST be excerpted?


320 posted on 04/20/2010 9:22:20 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 2,761-2,775 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson