Posted on 05/13/2010 11:11:02 PM PDT by 0beron
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the Vatican has failed in its attempt to maintain its immunity from liability lawsuits. Further court rulings next week will demonstrate how the Vatican will defend itself.
Despite this unprecedented situation, Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's U.S. lawyer remains confident that he will prove that the Vatican was not responsible for the sex-abuse of its American Bishops.
This is not only a victory from Jeffry Anderson who intends on holding the Vatican accountable for the abuses that took place.
It should be easy to provide examples of how Bishops and Priests have often refused to obey the Vatican in the past. It would be interesting to see if the Vatican will make this point as it is, after all, the truth. Most Catholic institutions, seminaries, hospitals and schools do not follow Vatican directives, especially as regards the hiring of homosexuals in the priesthood, or allowing abortion procedures in their hospitals, for example.
(Excerpt) Read more at eponymousflower.blogspot.com ...
Wow way out of line there.
I think you meant to post on your Stormfront account instead of your FreeRepublic account.
Were the founders Jews too?
Catholics shirking responsibility? No surprise.
The Catholic Church suffers from the same social ills as the surrounding society.
When you get the mass hysteria for Michael Jackson and monsters like Roman Polanski, you get a better idea who the real source of the degeneracy.
Just as in the time of our Lord, the crowds wanted Barabas.
Did the founders attack Catholics? Sorry, wasn’t Rhode Island one of the original 13?
To some extent I agree with you. The Catholic Church has not behaved well in this crisis, going back several decades. So, you are right, it's not a big surprise.
On the other hand it's sad to see the ACLU, an organization that once defended the first ammendment primarily, spending so much time and effort on the persecution of a religious group. Really, when did that become their mission? I think it's a huge stretch, but probably no more so of one than their near rabid support for abortion over the last twenty years or so.
I remember thinking that Bush 1 was out of line when he called Dukakis a "card carrying member of the ACLU", making an obvious communist allusion. At that point I didn't really feel that ACLU deserved the level of ridicule that Bush was focusing on them.
They certainly do now, and this last instance of gratuitous Catholic bashing is just one more example of an organization that is totally off course.
They were the lead plaintiff on the Mojave Cross case,to give only the most recent example on a list that extends all the way back to the Scopes trial. It's something they brag about on ther web page, right here: ACLU Sues to Remove Cross
But somehow it is 'way out of line' for me to point out that they are an organization that has been dominated by liberal Jewish people since it's inception, who are obsessed with fighting Christianity, are doing it again.
I thought it was the Daily Kos kids who specialized in throwing up charges of "racism" "homophobia" and "anti-semite" to anyone who dares mention the obvious. Not freepers.
But somehow it is 'way out of line' for me to point out that they are an organization that has been dominated by liberal Jewish people since it's inception, who are obsessed with fighting Christianity, are doing it again.
It is way out of line. It is completely irrelevant. The religion or ethnicity of the ACLU has NOTHING to do with the discussion, unless you're insinuating that Jews are predisposed to fight and hate Christianity, which is disgusting.
Do you pray to Jesus? You pray to the human form of God who died as a Jew, so s some respect why don't you, lest you burn in the fires of hell. Read Genesis 12:3 sometime.
What a disgusting post you made. It was removed for a reason. Own up to it Jacky boy.
Great way to encourage more Jews to vote Republican.
Finally, Jacky, for you to equate the ACLU’s advocacy of further exposure of the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal with their attempts to trample on religious freedoms is disgusting. I applaud the ACLU when they are occasionally right on issues, and they are right on this one. I don’t care what religion a man of God belongs to — if they abuse kids, they need to be held liable. And if the religious order knew about it and covered it up, they need to be held liable too. That’s not slurring Catholicism — that is simply looking out for children. I’m sorry if you belong to the Mel Gibson-extreme brand of Catholicism that seems to focus more on anti-Semitism instead of praising the Lord.
I’m sorry you can’t respond to things without rude and demeaning slurs against me. Pound sand, loser.
You’ve been here two days! TROLL.
Anti-semite.
The ACLU hasn't always been this nuts. They used to care about negative rights like the constitutional guarantees in the 4th amendment, for example. Now their focus is more on abortion and gay rights and other rights not mentioned in the constitution. This is unfortunate. But to slur all Jews when Jews were NOT mentioned in the article IS inappropriate and it IS why your post was removed.
Furthermore, you're the only one in this thread making that stupid argument that Jews are responsible for this (did you not say "Jews attacking Catholics. No surprise."?). There's enough to attack about the ACLU on its face without slurring the Jews as you did. It's a typical neo-nazi tactic and it' uncalled for. I'm just glad that your anti-semitic sentiment is not respected on FR.
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.