Posted on 04/12/2010 8:32:32 PM PDT by JoeProBono
You wrote:
“The evidence has been posted dozens of times. In black and white. In English.”
Nope. Not once. No where in paragraph 13 does it say what you claim it says. How can you post something that is so obviously untrue as that claim and then turn around and claim you posted the evidence?
“If you cannot understand that evidence, or choose not to read that evidence, then that is not my problem.”
You posted no evidence. Again, you apparently do not understand what a “prescription” is. Why keep claiming that something is in there that is not in there?
“It is a problem within the RCC.”
No, we actually can read - apparently anti-Catholics can’t.
“A BIG problem.”
The problem belongs solely to anti-Catholics. Again, post evidence for your claim. Can you?
Natural Law,
We all know what Dr. E. is, but saying it that bluntly just gets the post deleted and that would be a pity. I can’t deny you’re right. Don’t get me wrong, you are right. I just think we should say it within the rules so these truth telling posts are not deleted.
I appreciate the advice but since the good doctor chose to engage General/Chat thread instead of the protected Religion Forum the whole unvarnished truth can be told. I will say it again; she is a liar.
Natural Law has been calling people names for days now. The only reason this post is allowed to stand is that it's not on the religion forum, as Natural Law gleefully noted.
Ratzinger's letter of 2001 reiterated the secrecy outlined in CS and further stipulated that this secrecy was to be maintained by all parties involved for 10 years beyond the victim's 18th birthday.
That's what your future pope wrote. That's why he was accused of obstruction of justice and that's why he had to appeal for diplomatic immunity so as not to be prosecuted.
You have a problem in your church and it's not going to go away as long as you blame everyone else for that problem.
You wrote:
“I need to ping you more often....Natural Law has been calling people names for days now. The only reason this post is allowed to stand is that it’s not on the religion forum, as Natural Law gleefully noted.”
He may be calling you a name, but is the name accurate? So far I am not seeing any evidence that it is inaccurate. What do we do now?
You wrote:
“Crimen Solliciationis is filled with admonishments of secrecy under threat of excommunication.”
No, it is not filled with them.
“Anyone reading the material can see that.”
I see what is actually there. It is not filled with them.
“Ratzinger’s letter of 2001 reiterated the secrecy outlined in CS and further stipulated that this secrecy was to be maintained by all parties involved for 10 years beyond the victim’s 18th birthday.”
Post the text. Also, remember, I posted THE TEXT OF THE 2001 LETTER HERE AT FR. So, since we’ve both seen it it should be easy for you to point out evidence from it that would bolster your claim. Please do so.
“That’s what your future pope wrote. That’s why he was accused of obstruction of justice and that’s why he had to appeal for diplomatic immunity so as not to be prosecuted.”
Nope. He always had immunity. He’s the head of state. He had immunity no matter what.
“You have a problem in your church and it’s not going to go away as long as you blame everyone else for that problem.”
I’ve never blamed anyone else for the Church’s problem. If I blame a person (not the Church) for her own problem (the person’s problem) it is because it is her (the person’s) problem.
Now, just FINALLY post evidence for what you’ve been claiming.
Here is the claim:
“Part of the problem is that according to the Vatican’s Crimen Sollicitationis the victim and his family are sworn to secrecy from the time of the abuse until 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18 upon threat of excommunication.”
Prove it. Post the text that says exactly that from Crime Sollicitationis.
If you get a chance read paragraph 15, or have someone read it to you. It makes you look pretty foolish.
“Everyone’s wrong except Rome.”
“You don’t represent everyone, just the infinitesimal minority of rabid anti-Catholic menopausal dingbats with psychotic paranoiac delusions.”
That’s just ugly. No Christian I know talks that way to a woman. If they did, their pastor would take them aside and rebuke them.
Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.
Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.
Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.
Repeat as necessary.
Stop calling people names and act like an adult and not a six-year-old having a bad day.
You wrote:
“I have posted the excerpts you ask for countless times.”
You never did once - not the except you insisted actually existed. In reality it has never existed. You insisted that this was true: “Part of the problem is that according to the Vatican’s Crimen Sollicitationis the victim and his family are sworn to secrecy from the time of the abuse until 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18 upon threat of excommunication.”
It is not.
“You’ve apparently read them and commented on them. Go back and read them.”
You never once posted what you claimed existed. Not once.
“Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.”
I keep asking for you to post evidence for what you claimed. You have yet to do that.
“Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.”
I keep asking for you to post evidence for what you claimed. You have yet to do that.
“Then ask me again for the excerpts. Then go back and read them.”
I keep asking for you to post evidence for what you claimed. You have yet to do that.
“Repeat as necessary.”
I keep asking for you to post evidence for what you claimed. You have yet to do that.
This is what you claimed:
“Part of the problem is that according to the Vatican’s Crimen Sollicitationis the victim and his family are sworn to secrecy from the time of the abuse until 10 years after the victim reaches the age of 18 upon threat of excommunication.”
You have NEVER ONCE posted proof of your claim there. Not once. Not once EVER.
Others have demanded it and each time we have pointed out you have yet to do it and yet you keep saying you’ve done what you never did.
You wrote:
“Stop calling people names and act like an adult and not a six-year-old having a bad day.”
I’m not the one calling anyone names, but when someone repeatedly lies about something what is the appropriate label to use for that person?
What is childish if for someone to post a falsehood and keep insisting it is true despite all the evidence. I’m not the one doing that.
Thank God for the evidence of the written word.
You haven’t posted any evidence for what you claimed.
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.