To: Alberta's Child
How does bringing in the Boy Scouts or Rabbi's or teachers make what the piests and the Catholic Church did? Are you trying to say “Everybody Does It”?
71 posted on
03/23/2011 11:47:36 AM PDT by
faucetman
(Just the facts ma'am, just the facts)
To: faucetman
It puts it in the proper perspective. It is an ongoing societal problem which manifested itself in a Church organization. We are going to see that the demands of justice are met and then we are going to step back and let the good people of the Catholic Church set their affairs in order. It was their children who were victims in this and I am confident that they will handle this as needed.
77 posted on
03/23/2011 11:56:07 AM PDT by
MARTIAL MONK
(I'm waiting for the POP!)
To: faucetman
There was no attempt to justify anything. The point was made that the
New York Times was singling out the Catholic Church for attention and criticism because they have their own ulterior political and philosophical motives for doing so. The fact that the Times has given little or no attention for other similar sex abuse scandals is compelling evidence that they don't much care about the sex abuse . . . they only care when they have a vendetta against the perpetrator's organization.
I don't know why anyone here would dispute that, when you consider that just on the matter of political partisanship alone that rag has been completely discredited as leftist crap.
80 posted on
03/23/2011 12:04:27 PM PDT by
Alberta's Child
("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
To: faucetman
You’re short on reading comprehension. The priest’s point was that the man’s prejudice against priests was unfounded, not that molestation is OK because people engage in it.
99 posted on
03/23/2011 1:45:55 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(Anyone who says we need illegals to do the jobs Americans won't do has never watched "Dirty Jobs.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson