Posted on 09/16/2010 4:54:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
But conservatives can have strong disagreements among themselves on specific issues. Articles involving the Civil War (or 'war of Northern aggression') or creation v evolution or Apple v Microsoft or Pit Bulls Yes/No - often end up in the Smoky Backroom because the posters on both sides have strong opinions.
All the more so when the subject is religion. And to conservatives - freedom of religion, of speech and of assembly are very deeply held. Add to that that most conservatives are not atheists and the need for a Religion Forum is apparent and the special guidelines to handle the deeply held strong opinions being aired.
This is why this won't go away.
Imagine the outcry, the legitimate outcry, if it turned out these... persons were living on public assistance or had disappeared completely. The public perception would certainly be that the Church was saying "hey, he's your problem now".
This is like saying to the judge after you kill your mother don't give me the death penalty I'm an orphan.
If your church treated these scum in the manner they deserve and showed a little more empathy for the victims you wouldn't get beat over the head with this issue.
You want 'em? We could probably arrange a trade...
I think the lay member of the review board that I quoted from the source the NYTimes used made a plausible point. Keeping them "in house" lets the Church authorities keep tabs on them and some measure of control over their actions. Now, if these... persons are wearing clerical garb and/or using clerical titles or listed as priests "in residence" at parishes that's a HUGE problem. If they're doing any priestly functions routinely then that's stupid. Surely we've got plenty of empty monasteries around the world where we could pack 'em off to.
The article says "since 2001."
As registered sex offenders, the police will "keep tabs on them."
They should not be dressed as ministers of Christ and they should not have the title of "pastor."
They are convicted pedophiles. They should not be anywhere near a church or children.
They would be on the street the day after they are convicted.
Keeping them "in house" lets the Church authorities keep tabs on them and some measure of control over their actions.
Come on, lets get back to reality. Like your church authorities did such a great job supervising this scum in the first place! Is your church doing this for any janitors who may have committed the same crimes?
Surely we've got plenty of empty monasteries around the world where we could pack 'em off to.
There are probably a lot of more deserving parishioners who could use the help.
Two things are established by not immediately tossing these scum on the street. One, there is a different set of rules for these guys; two, your church doesn't think it's that big a deal.
You betcha.
How else to explain so many priests raping young boys>
Read the following Roman Catholic link written by Father Kenneth Baker who tells us...
"...Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with — both in his official ministry and in his personal life.
It's unScriptural and blasphemous enough to believe a priest is "another Christ" in "his official ministry," but why would any man need to be (nor should be even want to be) "another Christ in his personal life???"
It doesn't take any advanced degrees to realize the capacity for abuse a title like "another Christ in your private life" provides.
And sadly, RC priests have lived up to the false nomenclature.
2001-2002 = 1 year
2001-2003 = 2 years
2001-2004 = 3 years
2001-2005 = 4 years
2001-2006 = 5 years
2001-2007 = 6 years
2001-2008 = 7 years
2001-2009 = 8 years
2001-2010 = 9 years
Thus, SINCE 2001, is “nine years”.
Not only can’t anti-Catholic prove their lies, but basic counting is apparently difficult as well.
I want to make sure I understand exactly what the issue is here. There are priests who committed horrific sins, there are bishops who covered up the crimes and the cover ups of the crimes. On that I think we agree. The accused should be tried and, if found guilty, punished by the civil authorities. They should not return to active ministry in any capacity after whatever sentences are carried out. Are we still in agreement?
Then what... in Catholic language they should be reduced from the clerical state... all of them without regard to the particulars of their crimes? Do we go through the motions for the 80 year old who's bedridden in a nursing home when his crimes finally caught up with him after 50 years? I don't know, maybe.
Do we look at these messes on a case by case basis or just have a blanket policy? Do we draw the line based on what exactly? A conviction? Imprisonment? What if there's not enough evidence to convict in a secular court but an ecclesiastical court can?
Is it possible to make a case that certain individuals could or should be better monitored by keeping them "in the ranks" so to speak? NOT functioning as priests of course.
Please prove this false statement you made:
“...THEREFORE ENTITLED TO WHATEVER PLEASURABLE LARKS HE MIGHT FEEL THE NEED TO EXPERIENCE.”
The emphasis is all mine, the falsity is all yours.
Prove what you claimed. When you fail, and you will, we will know what kind of statement you made.
Here's some relevant info for those genuinely interested in what's going on here, as opposed to grandstanding.
When presented with the findings, the church said that of those 14 priests, six applications for dismissal were currently underway, one further decision to pursue dismissal had been made and three dismissals were either rejected by Rome or not pursued due to acute ill health.
In four of the cases, no application had been made but the priests were subject to risk management in the community. It said this policy was "entirely consistent with the spirit of the Nolan recommendations", adding that a bishop had to apply to Rome for a priest to be laicised and "neither the duration nor the outcome of the application is in the bishop's control".
I proved it to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most people who can read English at the sixth grade level or above.
If you don’t get it, well...
You wrote:
“I proved it to my satisfaction...”
To your satisfaction? Well, that threshold isn’t too high now is it? And that threshold certainly seems to have nothing to do with any known standard of proof but that is to be expected from the anti-Catholic.
“...and to the satisfaction of most people who can read English at the sixth grade level or above.”
No, I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t exactly see people leaping in here to say you’re absolutely right on that point and even if they did they would be just as unable to prove it as you apparently are. Fictions like what you claimed can’t be proved.
“If you don’t get it, well...”
Oh, but I do get it. Anti-Catholics like to lie. It’s what they do.
Hey, your posts are the ones getting pulled. Not mine.
Yes, I have a problem with this as well...though the Pope has said the church was not accountable as it should have been, until there is action within the church on these Priests these are simply empty words. They should no longer be in the Priesthood. Why the Church cannot see this is stunning.
Pedophile felons.
They don’t belong in the garb of a minister of God.
They lost that privilege when they raped their first young boy.
And if you look at my exchange with the RM, you’ll see that they were pulled because I used word like liar. They were not pulled because I was incorrect.
And once again, you have posted no evidence for your claim. More and more we see that it was false. And it will continue to be shown to be false. People will naturally come to the correct conclusion. They just won’t be able to say it without their posts being pulled.
According to the rules, however, I can say, Anti-Catholics are liars.
You wrote:
“They don’t belong in the garb of a minister of God.”
What’s the proper punishment for liars, Dr. E.?
They are convicted pedophiles. They should not be anywhere near a church or children.
If they are suspended a divinis, they aren't "pastors" of anything, and aren't permitted to be functioning as priests in any public fashion.
So how many of these men are suspended a divinis?
Please post the official teaching document of the Catholic Church that says that a priest is "entitled to whatever pleasurable larks he might feel the need to experience".
Post it right here.
Prove your charges, or admit that you're making them up.
Here, let me help: You're making them up.
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.