Posted on 09/16/2010 4:54:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
Rome gives NO evidence of “being sorry.”
The few words Ratzinger spoke today about the sex abuse scandal he said on the airplane to a tiny captive audience away from crowds and dissent.
And who did he blame? Church officials.
lolol. Who is the #1 church official? Ratzinger. So HE failed his church. HE overlooked the scandal. HE made excuses for pedophiles. HE shuffled offending priests from one parish to another. HE covered up the evidence. HE refused documents to the prosecution...
He didn’t apologize. He said it was a sad event.
Yeah. That’s a sufficient band-aid. “Mistakes were made.”
lol. Rome wishes.
The "story" is the same as it's always been.
Rome corrupts children and doesn't seem to care.
But you wrote "he belongs in jail", I gather the civil authorities have decided to release him/them. So, strange as it may seem apparently he doesn't belong in jail... at least according to the people who could actually put him in jail. As I wrote earlier, I'm quite sure you don't want the Church taking over the courts... or prisons, and I suppose I don't either.
Oh like that's not gonna bring the mod running? If we would just keep calm and carry on the wild eyed nattering nabobs (whoever they may be) would destroy their own credibility quite efficiently with only the occasional nudge. Jumping into the mudpit and shouting Geronimo confuses everything.
LOL. Maybe you missed 36. Your side is losing it.
Shoot the messenger.
Rome’s modus operandi.
"...14 of 22 Catholic priests convicted of serious sexual offenses since 2001 in England and Wales, and sentenced to more than one year in jail, have still not been defrocked and remain members of the clergy."
The courts have acted. They convicted them and put them in jail.
The question is should a pedophile felon wear the clothes of a pastor of Christ's sheep?
No.
Apparently Rome's standards for its priesthood are very very low.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Click on my profile page for more guidelines to the Religion Forum.
As expected, you apparently have no evidence whatsoever to prove your point.
I already know the rules. That doesn’t make a lie any less of a lie. The simple fact is that anti-Catholics hide behind the rules. I don’t lie. The Catholics here don’t lie. The anti-Catholics do. When a lying anti-Catholic is challenged to prove the lie, he or she ALWAYS fails to do so. The lie is often so manifest, and so obviously unprovable, that the liar will simply hide behind the rules and never even attempt to prove the lie.
All of this proves the moral bankruptcy of the Protestant anti-Catholics and their sects. Apparently they do not believe it is morally wrong to lie. That is the only rational explanation.
By the way, as far as I can tell, this post in no way violates not a single rule since it doesn’t “make it personal” about anyone. Now we’ll just see if you leave it up or not.
Hey! Wasn't there a potty language rule or was I hallucinating?
I pull any Religion Forum post containing potty language or references to potty language.
For instance, you might say a deity, religious authority, author, sect or group lies. But if you say another Freeper is a liar or has told a lie, then that is making it personal.
Because there are so many other word choices ("false" "wrong" "error" "misinformed", etc.) - there is NO justification whatsoever for using that word in reference to another Freeper, personally. It attributes motive, the intent to deceive - it is mind reading and therefore inflammatory.
Why? "Because" is an acceptable answer I suppose, but why isn't it in the rules?
Why are the rules different in the Religion Forum?
Being gracious and hoping your pope would denounce a law in the UK that's being used to keep Christians from living their faith doesn't mean I won't criticize the leader of a church that keeps priests on after they've been convicted of sexually abusing people.
If you read the Pope’s remarks also, he does not support any kind of abuse at all.
Then why are there priests in your church that have been convicted of sexual abuse?
I don't believe anyone wants a witch hunt. We are talking about priests that have been convicted of a heinous crime.
I understand what you’re saying. I also understand the limitations of what you’re saying. Essentially it boils down to this:
People are allowed to lie here.
People, however, are not allowed to note that someone has lied here.
People are allowed to make inflammatory lying statements.
People, however, are not allowed to note that inflammatory lying statements have been made here.
People can call statements “false” or “erroneous” but not “lies” or perhaps even “dishonest”. This applies to statements such as this (please note the section in caps):
“The RCC says the priest is greater than the rest of us, more holy, closer to God, and THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WHATEVER PLEASURABLE LARKS HE MIGHT FEEL THE NEED TO EXPERIENCE.”
I understand the rules. I also understand how Protestant anti-Catholics routinely lie and hide behind the rules here. It’s what they do and it’s what the rules here, sadly, foster. But I do understand.
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.