Posted on 02/15/2007 11:18:10 PM PST by Gamecock
You never answered my question in post 73. And since that post Alex provided more examples demonstrating our interest in "scandals" in our back yard.
Sandy: it appears to me that non-catholics are more interested in catholic scandal than they are in scandals in their own backyard.
GC: Care to retract or should I go on?
So my question stands. Do you care to retract?
I'll look forward to your reply when I return on Monday.
Well, its 1140pm here and I'm going to bed.
Blessings ya'll!
Cloaked in what appears to be sarcasm and subtle denial, but it's better than most. I'll give it a 7.5. ;-)
Wow, I have no idea as to what you are talking about.
What's there to say about the article? Don't steal? Oh look, more sinners? Well, that's kind of a "no kidding" type of thing. Maybe Catholics are well aware of the fact that priests sin. It's not like this is a big shock or anything.
I guess we could all point and say, look more sinners. But why? I know that my good and holy Pastor is a sinner. I have heard him lose his temper. So an article pointing out the sins of priests is old news to me.
Take a look at post number 3 in this thread. Note that it summons a host of Protestant polemicists while pre-emptively saying, "Let the rationalizations begin." Before it is made, the Cahtolic response is characterized as deficient. What looks like an article about a grievous trend is revealed by post number three to be, at least, bait. Is the trapper on the same side as his prey?
Then by the time we get to the posts in the 80s not only have we had an injured innocence act, but Catholics are being criticized for not taking the bait, despite the fact that their future responses were already discounted as rationalizations and thus discouraged.
In other words, an article was put up as a provocation. Evidently the response was insufficient and post #3 was a further provocation. The response was still not enough, the bait not swallowed, the hook not set, so then it is suggested that not taking the bait is a kind of flaw.
On the whole, it's not an auspicious beginning for a thoughtful enquiry into the meaning of the sinfulness of the clergy. It's a great beginning for a bar fight, though.
Thou art [not thou personally, thou understandest?] like one of these fellows that, when he enters the confines of a tavern, claps me his sword upon the table and says "God send me no need of thee!" and by the operation of the second cup draws him on the drawer, when indeed there is no need.
Where precisely is the sarcasm and what exactly am I denying?
You asked for comments, you complained that you weren't getting any comments. I find the whole thing unremarkable. They didn't put controls in, they got peculated. This is news?
What is it with you people? I know clerics of all manner of denominations and even religions. I know swamis, fakirs, roshi, sensei, pastors, brothers, sisters, "revrunds", rabbis, you name it. All of them sin. Some fail spectacularly. I knew that before I became a Catholic. I knew that before I became an adult. Just WHAT is the big deal?
What kind of response, other than spitting on a picture of the Pope and renouncing Catholicism, would you consider appropriate?
Yeah, I'm angry. This whole thing is bogus.
"Ping to 79. BTW, there have been precious few Catholics here who have commented on this article, even though I am sure they have popped in just because of the title.."
In my view, your track record shows just how disingenuous your posts and comments are.
I've always thought of myself as tasting lousy and being more filling.
It's called "discussing current news".
I wasn't talking about silly evangelicals or even Ted Haggert visiting a male prostitute - as that does not involve child abuse.
I'm not talking about Rick Warren's recent wanderings into la-la land either.
There are non-catholic clergy who are also committing lewd and predatory acts against innocent children.
It appears to me that non-catholics would rather not talk about the married baptist minister who has sex with a 14 yr. old girl, kidnaps her and manages to turn her against her own family.
Now, forgive me if I'm wrong. I'm sure I must have missed the numerous threads...but where are the threads about perverted non-catholic ministers preying on children?
"Will that do?:"
LOL!
sounds good to me Mad Dawg!
I'd like to add my own catholic comment.
It is the rare priest who is properly trained in the matters of administration of finances.
Those matters should be left to a parish council who in turn reports to the diocese.
Let the priest be there for the people and take part in the council meetings.
But to have one person in charge of large sums of money with no oversight is just begging for trouble no matter what the denomination of church you are talking about.
Amen!
How fortunate you are to be a part of such a congregation.
Yes, thank you
But sin appears in Genesis before any commentary on it, one way or the other.
No, you'll see few comments. The deal is, a Catholic can't speak in defense of his or her faith on "Free" Republic. The religion mod moves quickly to ban any Catholic who doesn't toe the protestant line.
Just for laughs, use the search function and count the number of "Sola Scriptura" or "Mary, Mother of God" threads posted by Catholics just in the last ninety days, and get back to me.
Bonus points will be awarded if you can tell me how many of them were posted within the very same week as others on the same subject.
Triple points will be awarded if you can find any "Sola Scriptura" threads posted by Calvinists, that went uninterrupted by dissenters, within the same time period.
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.