Posted on 04/04/2010 6:30:41 PM PDT by myknowledge
Why would they want them? As a whole, they're everything traditional Roman Catholics are trying to rid themselves of.
To paraphrase Gov. Palin as she addressed a heckler, these protesters should stick around, maybe they might learn something.
And it is more proof that this Pope is doing something right.
I also find it funny while these anti-Christian bigots whine about alleged child sex abuse within the Catholic Church, they say absolutely nothing about the child sex abuse that goes on in other religions. My only conclusion from that is that as long as it is a non-Catholic doing the abuse, then it is A-OK.
I'm starting to think this is yet another made-up conspiracy, which, as others have said, is all part of the ongoing attacks on Christianity and Christians that we have endured for the past 2000 years.
I think it is no accident that this proposed tactic is the same one proposed against Israeli heads of state who visit the U.K.
No.
athiest Jewish?
The Vatican needs to go to war against the rich homosexuals and far-left groups that are behind this coordinated smear campaign.
It would be unfair to say “nothing else.” Satan has coordinated himself with some people who were genuinely hurt and who have a valid cause before God about whether the man who is now pope shirked duties that are unique to a hierarchical church.
See also: ACLU.
I’m really not trying to start a Jewish-bashing thing, but with the NYT out front of the Pope-bashing might as well state the obvious.
Now that’s about enough criticism of our Jewish friends from me. I think there’s some of that happening, but I sure don’t want to take that too far. :)
But don’t forget left-leaning Jewish Americans are quite strongly pro-homosexual and did, vote 79% for Obama...
It moves me to marvel how many straw men get thrown up by devout Catholics when this topic comes up. There are duties unique to a hierarchical church.
I'm not a devout Catholic by any stretch, but I can't possibly believe that the Catholic Church is the only institution with this problem. Take islam for example, child sex abuse is practically condoned in that religion and yet you see no protests against it. Of course this does not excuse these crimes, but one can only concluded that it is anti-Catholic bigotry that is the driving force of these protests since child sex abuse by other religions is perfectly acceptable to these protesters.
I also wonder how many times the Catholic Church has to atone for these crimes? If those who committed the crimes were prosecuted, or these issues are beyond the realm of prosecution in the legal system, and if the Church has made efforts to reach legal settlements with the actual victims of abuse, then what more can be done?
It could in the end turn out to be no more than ugly rumor mongering, but somehow the notion that when the current pope was a bishop he winked at such drastically personally injurious practices in situations where he could have intervened, has to be credibly answered. It’s way past the point of keeping it quiet to avoid driving people out of what they believe is the only place to get a gospel of salvation.
The answer is not something like, “the members of the Southern Baptist Convention have an equal proportion of pedophile clergy.” (No I am not a Baptist.) Those hurt children in the former case didn’t go to the Baptist church. They went to the Catholic church. They are still crying in pain.
Yet they let Islam walk all over that country.
Islamophilic hypocrites...
This is all part of the muzzie takeover of the UK and the left’s attack on Christianity. The muzzies are co-opting the left and will use them until they’re no longer useful at which point they will be beheaded or, if they’re lucky, merely banished. The NYT is up to its eyeballs in this smear of Benedict because it’s so hateful of Christianity, particularly the strong pro-life wing. The NYT probably has no clue the extent to which this helps our Islamic enemies.....or maybe they do and that’s their goal. It really doesn’t matter.
You WOULD think, to be fair, the NYT would illustrate some of the sheikhly shenanigans that take place in both the Middle East and at home. It probably dwarfs that of Christian institutions of any stripe. But there’s no Islamic pope to take pot shots at so it’s less fun for them. Also they’d find themselves jihadees in short order.
Those inclined to get steamed up with negative generalisations about Britain on the basis of unrepresentative machinations such as those reported here will find, I predict, that in the event the Pope is welcomed to Britain with dignity, honour and warmth by British people and British institutions alike.
I agree. So let the anti-Christian left provide all the verifiable, credible evidence they have to prove this "story." Unless they can, then they are guilty of slander, and they deserve to be beaten back hard by the Vatican.
We can't simply presume that someone is guilty of something when the accuser won't provide credible, verifiable evidence of any wrongdoing and the party being accused won't mount a defense as a result.
It is unknown except to God and a few people whether the accusations are slander.
Generous settlements have assuaged much of their pain and that of their lawyers; entire dioceses have been bankrupted over this.
There has been explanation after explanation, new policy after new policy, apology after apology...and nothing is ever enough because the whole point is not to deal with the problem of child abuse, but to destroy the Church.
There is no way to go back in time and change things. Many of the responses of the Church were, unfortunately, just the same as the responses of the secular world at that time(therapy and a way too trusting treatment of offenders with children, and nearly complete tolerance of gay ephebophiles). The Church should have been different from secular society, but it wasn’t.
Curiously, I see no cry for apologies over Board of Ed policies that left sex offenders teaching in schools (because the unions protected their employment records), no apologies from courts that for years in the 1970s and 1980s gave laughably light sentences to child molesters and sexual psychopaths, no demand for apologies from people like Obama’s education administration candidate who was in favor of child sex...the people who are so “concerned” about child molestation are curiously selective in their outrage.
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.