This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 07/14/2007 1:07:11 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
flamewar |
Posted on 07/12/2007 6:25:21 PM PDT by xzins
In an act of jaw-dropping hubris, Pope Benedict Joseph Ratzinger recently declared Protestantism's churches "not true churches." In an effort to underscore the wisdom of such a position at this time, he then had his "document" signed by none other than Cardinal William Levada, a pro-gay, pro-pedophile, pro-molestation cleric hailing recently from San Francisco and Portland. Apparently hypocrisy is in abundant supply in the Vatican larder.
Levada is one of the papal appointments that causes either great puzzlement about (or gives great insight into) this Pope's orientation. Fresh off of scandals in his previous appointments, Levada received one of the Vatican's highest appointments to the post previously held by Benedict himself before his own ascension to the papacy. One of the most powerful positions in all of Catholicism, the Vaticans Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is Levada's launching pad to spread his peculiar influence to the remainder of the church. He seems just the guy a conservative church leader like Ratzinger would think of when puzzling the question, Who should I have teach the people about Jesus?
In having Levada sign this negative document rejecting Protestant churches and ministers, the Pope has displayed either blind incompetence or unbelievable hypocrisy. Others think he simply might not have been sleeping well ..for a long, long, long time.
William Donohue, head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is on record castigating Cardinal Levada for blaming the female victim who was impregnated by one of Levada's randy underlings. At the time, Levadas position was that the lady should have used protection. (Could Nancy Pelosi have said it better?)
Donohue's take was that the statement was no different than saying 'What's wrong with you, honey, aren't you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?' "
The Los Angeles Times, no conservative paper, had listed Levada among the area's most powerful gay-friendly Catholic leaders.
See links below
I disagree with him in the strongest possible terms. I believe this thread should be required reading for Religion Forum posters, so that they might learn about how low the critics of the Catholic Church are willing to stoop.
I ask you again: are your posts 822 or 831 an attempt to repress Catholic speech?
It's not paranoia if there's a basis for it. In that case it's called caution. I don't recall all the details, but a couple years ago didn't the RCC support a law in France banning evangelizing? I may be wrong and if so apologize, but I'm pretty sure it happened.
It seems that, on this thread, it completely sufficient merely to allege it with no support whatsoever.
Tell him.
How many of your close personal Jewish friends have you asked their opinions concerning the church in Rome elevating an ex-Hitler youth to the office of pope?
Read 839.
ROFLOL!
Dr.E. provides more links and quotes from Scripture than anybody on these threads.
That would not constitute proof of your fantastic claim that "VAST majority of Jews find Ratzinger's ascension to be pathetic and threatening."
Can you prove it or not?
And yet these issues remain unanswered.
YOU: I'm also still waiting for you to provide some kind of explanation for this calumny.
Martyrs die. Appeasers don't.
What exactly did they say?
Did they ask people to pray to God through them?
Did they ask for temples to be built to them?
The point remains humans are not sent to give us messages from God, until the final tribulation.
See, you made a very specific claim, in three parts:
(a) Ratzinger was complicit and was rewarded; i.e.
(b) compensated
(c) for it (quid pro quo).
Yet you have not proved this. It’s a fantastic claim, deeply slanderous/libelous, and yet you do not present your proof. Truth is an absolute defense, you know.
Just trying to be helpful.
Usually you can raise a question on these threads because there are a lot of posters and someone can clarify it. I think I was pretty clear that I wasn't certain about this issue.
You, OTOH, have not referenced any Scripture to support your beliefs.
Thus, we see those beliefs in the assumption, immaculate conception and co-redeeming of Mary are not found in Scripture, but are instead fables, lies and folly.
"He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:20
This must explain the lack of Scriptural support for the RCC's errors regarding Mary.
Whom did you expect to provide "Scriptural support for the RCC's errors regarding Mary?"
The term in the title “Sex Molestation Advocate” is libel.
But it would give you some sense of what Jewish people are really thinking. I urge you to ask some of your Jewish friends for their opinion.
Or don't you care what Jewish people think about your church elevating an ex-Hitler youth to the office of pope?
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.