St. Gerard Majella, patron saint of the falsely accused, pray for them.
Posted on 10/17/2013 11:52:52 AM PDT by Pyro7480
Shamont Lyle Sapp was an industrious inmate as he bounced between prisons from 2005 to 2011.
While serving a long stretch for 10 bank robberies, Sapp found time to falsely accuse four Catholic priests – in four states – of sexually abusing him, according to government prosecutors....
On Tuesday, the 50-year-old prisoner stood before a federal judge in Portland to take his lumps for filing a phony lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Portland.
"I plead guilty," Sapp told U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown, adding that he felt better now that he'd told the truth about his crime....
While serving time at Allenwood, Sapp researched old news stories about pedophile priests. He seized on the case of the Rev. Thomas Laughlin, the first clergyman with Portland's archdiocese to be convicted of sexually abusing children....
Then Sapp's accusations took a sinister turn. In 2006, he filed a false claim against an active priest as part of a U.S. Bankruptcy Court case in Spokane. The priest, Peifer said, had never been accused of sex abuse, but news of the lawsuit damaged his reputation.
Lawyers and investigators in Portland ran up more than $60,000 in costs as they disproved Sapp's claim against the Roman Catholic archdiocese. Prosecutors are expected to ask the court to make Sapp pay full restitution....
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
St. Gerard Majella, patron saint of the falsely accused, pray for them.
Catholic ping!
:: It turns out that there are innocent priests who are unjustly accused. ::
Quelle surprise! In today’s atmosphere, I would guess more than less are falsely accused.
An attorney friend of mind was involved with the priest sex abuse lawsuits in Los Angeles. He told me that 10% to 20% of the accusations were b.s. One guy claimed that he was an altar boy who was molested by a priest. In fact the accuser was in prison at the time of the alleged molestation.
Impossible. No one would ever, ever, ever, ever lie about something so serious! Especially not if there were a chance at collecting monetary damages!
There was one in Tulsa when we were still there that was pure invention. The pretend victim came up with several stories about when and where he was “abused,” and the priest could prove he was elsewhere, every time.
One thing is bugging me...is the "T" is Shamont pronounced, or is it silent?
Just to think you can do it is amazing. Evil.
96% of priests have never been accused, if you believe the John Jay Report. And if you believe Phil Lawler, 66% of the bishops were complicit in cover ups over the remaining 4%.
Speaking of false accusations, who are these "obscure sects" that you speak of?
What makes you believe the protesters in your picture are Reformed Protestants?
"In 1648, the first printing of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly were made available for distribution and sale in England and Scotland. They remain the clearest expressions of Reformed Protestantism ever formulated..."- May 13, This Week in Religion History
Confession and Catechisms [introduction to the Westminster Confession of Faith]
The Westminster Confession of Faith
[from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website]
Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture
Chapter 2: Of God, and of the Holy Trinity
Chapter 3: Of God’s Eternal Decree
Chapter 4: Of Creation
Chapter 5: Of Providence
Chapter 6: Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof
Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant with Man
Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator
Chapter 9: Of Free Will
Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling
Chapter 11: Of Justification
Chapter 12: Of Adoption
Chapter 13: Of Sanctification
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith
Chapter 15: Of Repentance unto Life
Chapter 16: Of Good Works
Chapter 17: Of the Perseverance of the Saints
Chapter 18: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
Chapter 19: Of the Law of God
Chapter 20: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience
Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day
Chapter 22: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows
Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate
Chapter 24: Of Marriage and Divorce
Chapter 25: Of the Church
Chapter 26: Of the Communion of Saints
Chapter 27: Of the Sacraments
Chapter 28: Of Baptism
Chapter 29: Of the Lord’s Supper
Chapter 30: Of Church Censures
Chapter 31: Of Synods and Councils
Chapter 32: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
Chapter 33: Of the Last Judgment
I know Reformed, as a term, carries a certain connotation. But I used quote marks as an indication that I believe the “Reformation” in general was not a reformation, but a revolution — the 1st phase in the Revolution that continues against Christendom. We are currently in the 4th phase — the cultural relativist/hippie phase. The previous two are the French Revolution and the revolutions it inspired — and the communist revolution.
And those in the picture need to introductions.
Need no, not need to
Not exactly "Reformed", while it also stands to be said that there were splinter groups and whacko birds of all sizes and shapes, long before the Reformation -- while ignoring the basis for the need for the Reformation, in the first place! That's a big FAT ignore.
Pinning the entire "blame" of the French Revolution on the Reformation is a bit weak, too. Attributing Marxism to the Reformation is even worse.
What alternative would be suggested?
Do you desire world peace? Appoint me to be King of the World --- then I'll tell everyone what to do (and how to do it). All everyone has to do (to insure peace and tranquility) is to do what I tell them. Until I change my mind.Then they must do that. Until I amend or adjust that even further. Just Obey.
Don't like that plan? I don't either, but that's how FRomans come off as sounding, regarding their own church ecclesiastical community, with Obama, Reid, & Pelosi, also wanting the same for their own selves.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the real one, not the one in the movies) Christ did tell us that His own kingdom, was not of this world...
Obviously, there needs to be some re-consideration of one's paradigm.
Actually, if you want to go back further, Richard Weaver (no "Roman"), in his conservative classic Ideas Have Consequences, points the finger at William of Ockham's nominalism, which undercut the concept of universal truth in philosophy. If you undercut that idea, you can start doubting the truths that were passed on to you, as Luther and Calvin did.
Also, all three phases of this Revolution are egalitarian:
Protestantism: every man is his own pope and ultimately, one re-interpret every teaching of Christianity until you end up, as some mutations off that first phase have, deny Christ's Divinity, which is pretty amazing.
French Revolution: of course, its motto was "liberté, égalité, fraternité. "Égalité" is not just "equality", but a radical reorientation of society so that every citizen is "equal" politically, and throwing away all vestiges of the "unjust" past, including Christianity.
Of course, the roots of socialism and communism came out of this matrix, and just under 60 years after the storming of the Bastille, you have Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and the concept of economic egalitarianism. The communists reach their peak during the Soviet era, and out of the philosophers and political theorists from that sphere, you have the roots of the current phase -- cultural relativism.
The Revolutionary process may have mutated a few times since William of Ockham, but the same thread through it from him to Obama.
Excuse me while I go throw up.
Take it up with Richard Weaver and with history.
What part of My kingdom is not of this world do you not understand?
I asked you what alternative may be suggested --- what did you give me but more of the "look at those guys" they are all to blame for everything sort of garbage.
No, I will not be sent on a wild goose chase to "take it up with Richard Weaver", (particularly when there is no link provided) but I do reserve all right towards opportunity to "take it up with history", even Ecclesiastical History as I point towards certain aspects of History myself, while taking those matters also up with you. You are the one presenting the argument with which I am objecting. If you can't back up your own declaratory statements but with the opinions of others and some Romanist-centric view towards history, then why even come on this particular forum to discuss those sort of things, at all? Get thee back to some papist hole somewhere, if by way of tying in the Reformation to Marxism, and now to "cultural relativism" by default one is also including the Constitution of The United States as being part of this demonized political equality (one man, one vote, each is allowed opportunity to be heard, just state your case).
Just what is that you are implying as "cure", anyway? Is it a return to caesaropapism, or the seemingly more preferred Papocaesarism?
"What was the Enlightenment except an exploitation of the disorder sowed by the Protestant Revolution? What was that religious revolution except a misdirected reaction to corruption in the medieval papacy? What was that papal corruption except a pernicious consequence of Papo-caesarism? What was that unbalanced ecclesiology but a short-sighted way to protect the Church against invasion by civil rulers? What was that regal invasion but . . . and so on and on and on—all the way back to Adam’s choice to believe what was nothing less than Satan’s Lie?" ~Dr. Ed Peters
Many "Protestants" (actual protestants -- if we are to adhere to the information provided by Alex Murphy as to definitions and explanation for what those person's beliefs in actuality are -- rather than some loosely implied straw-man re-creation of that) and Orthodox also, have throughout history pointed towards the flaws and inherent drawbacks of caesaropapist/papocaesarist systems. Those are not all that it's cracked up to be, as history itself (which you dare mention) plainly enough shows.
But now, for Christians looking towards Christ for salvation, perhaps the worst aspects of it may be abandoned, and true Christianity in form which both the Protestants and the Orthodox would recognize -- meaning -- the sort which converts one from the inside out, rather than forced attempts at maintaining an outwards scrubbing, as the plan for the conversion and setting apart from the world, and keeping holy, entire nations, can better commence, even under some possible period of renewed martyrdom. Did Christ promise us anything less?
where the papacy is as king, thus seen as something of anti-Christ regardless or despite of the apparent "two-fingered blessing" offered. Elsewhere (Russia), there was never any real kissing of "papal" feet, though that two-fingered blessing would be "orthodox" enough for some centuries, but could help cause one to be slaughtered or burned at the stake by Caeseropapists.
History is not the true friend of Papists, my FRomish FRiend...
You (and Richard Weaver) wish to pin the blame of Marxism itself partially on "Protestants", putting those sort of things together as one inevitable progression or train of thought, when on the contrary, not only is the evidence of the U.S. Constitution standing in defiance of that which you seem to imply when pointing towards Weaver's suppositions, there are those whom were close indeed to Marxist communism when it first asserted itself as "system", who can trace the development of communism back to the claims of "universal religious authority" having sought also for itself secularized, temporal rule.
Excerpted from;
"... Hardly can it be presupposed and even less can it be desired, that anew there should be a return to a realising of the work of Christ in the world, of the Kingdom of God, by the forceful methods of the kingdom of Caesar. This jumble and confusion would already be impossible in the coming period of Christianity. And if there should be a coercive confessional state, then this would be a socialist or communist state, based on a contrary atheistic religion, a state which would persecute Christians and the Church of Christ. In Russian Communism is given a prime example of such a Satan-ocratic state. The Church of Christ in this world always was and will be oppressed, -- either by a false protection, converting it into tools of the state, to Caesar's ends, or by persecution. The third period of Christian history brings with it a final freeing of Christianity from the temptations of a pagan Roman imperialism, from utopian visionary dreams about the universal might of tsar or pope, i.e. from the idea of a coercive and quantitative universalism. The Christian world is being freed from those pagan and anti-Christian temptations, is being cleansed, is being rendered more spiritual and deeply profound. The pretensions to a coercive quantitative universalism ultimately has passed over to Communism, to the godless kingdom of Caesar. Communism shows itself by force to be a compulsory theocracy, it exists as an utopia. The Christian world, however, strives ultimately towards the Kingdom of God, which is not of this world and which comes imperceptibly. But that, which is "not of this world", can be manifest in this world and it ought to be manifest. The new epoch within Christianity signifies a passing over from the symbolic significations of the truth of Christ and the Kingdom of Christ within the kingdom of Caesar, a passing over instead towards a real transfiguration, towards a real realisation of the truth of Christ and the Kingdom of Christ, without pretension to an outward state. The old "Christian state" did not try even to realise Christianity within social life. Having been set free from the pagan temptations, from the regarding of Caesar's principles as divine, it will enable the reapproachement of the Eastern and Western Christian world. Their divisions were primarily temptations of the kingdom of Caesar. In the Kingdom of Christ, in the Kingdom of God, there cannot be divisions. The divisions occurred within the kingdom of Caesar, and were construed as sacred, as being of the Kingdom of God. We ought to recognise, that there transpires not only an outward, a political, social revolution, but that there transpires also an inward and spiritual upheaval, opening up a new period for Christianity. The mixed-up kingdom, in which " the things of God" and "the things of Caesar" were not sufficiently separated wherein one substituted for the other, has ended. The Christian state also was a jumbled half-Christian state. An half-fast Christianity is already an impossibility. A time of choosing has begun. Christianity can be only a qualitatively inward, spiritual power in the world, and not a quantitative, outwardly coercive power. Christianity can but be really a power realising the truth of Christ. The new wine is being brought forth in the Christian world and it is impossible to pour it into the old wine-skins. ..."Nikolai Berdyaev, 1925 [emphasis added]
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.