Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
Get a load of what they're doing to the woman who accused Father Corapi of sexual assault and drug addiction...
The move was in reaction to a letter by a former employee of the media company sent to several bishops and claiming that Corapi was addicted to drugs and sexually involved with multiple women. Bobbi Ruffatto, Vice President of Operations at Santa Cruz Media, Inc., said in a statement Friday that the only evidence against Corapi thus far is “the unsubstantiated rant of a former employee, who, after losing her job with this office, physically assaulted me and another employee and promised to ‘destroy’ Father Corapi.”"A leader of the company that manages Rev. John Corapi’s media has claimed that the recent accusations against the popular priest were launched by a “disgruntled” former employee who vowed to “destroy” Corapi’s reputation...
Nevermind that Corapi was supposedly involved with "several women."
They will try to destroy this woman. Can't have anyone tarnishing the reputation of an "alter Christus."
And Roman Catholic apologists wonder why men and boys hesitate to come forward publicly after being assaulted by pederast priests.
How many RC comments have we seen about these stories that put "victims" in quotes? Just about all of them.
Your own doctrines also derive from those folks. They were not heretics.
One of America's foremost religious analysts was John Leland (who wrote, with James Madison, the First Amendment).
He differed with most Protestants of his time on the question of SUNDAY SCHOOL and congregational missionaries. His views were essentially identical to that of the Orthodox and pretty doggone similar to the RCC.
I think Sunday School is great, and if a congregation wants to sponsor a foreign mission that's great too. So, I differ with an ancestor who helped found an entire religious movement (where I remain a member) ~ amazing isn't it.
You managed to cherry pick what I wrote to lead people to believe I do not condemn abuse. Try not to do that. I was very clear to state that I agreed with the concerns expressed by Turtlepower (?). I also in other posts in this thread said I wanted all the evidence allowed by law to be reviewed by the jury and if that lead to a guilty verdict so be it.
The fact of abuse does not change fact that many are using it as a means to condemn the Catholic Church and Catholics for Catholic beliefs and teachings.
What is this?
My denomination is bigger than yours, so nyah!!!!
Might doesn’t make right.
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
Actually, that would only make them a Catholic heretic. Not all Catholics are Christians and not all Christians are Catholic.
Be careful to not conflate the two.
I usually concede that Catholics are Christians whether they are or not. That’s a personal matter between them and God. I am not God nor am I a pope.
First it lists priests accused of abuse. Not convicted. Most of the allegations I believe were probably true. But some are not. Convictions and settlements are spelled out in the profiles. Secondly very few of them were actually cases of priests abusing somebody while they were active chaplains. Usually what happened is that earlier accusations came to light while the priests were serving in the military. Not all transfers to military service were to hide the abusive priests. But that is not what the introductory paragraph on Bishop Accountability leads one to believe. It wants you to believe that these priests were abusing serviceman and/or their families. Yes some were guilty of that. However most were guilty of or accused of earlier crimes. Those crimes mostly did not come to light till years later. As is typical in these cases.
There is enough real guilt that I don’t understand the need to imply that U.S. serviceman are unsafe because of Catholic Chaplains.
It boggles the mind to be presented with such ignorance.
You know nothing of Father Corapi and should be ashamed for assuming all allegations are true.
I was rereading the body of the thread and was struck by this.....
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."
The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.
"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."
I noticed that the lawyer didn't deny the facts the judge stated, but rather that he was incensed that someone told on him. "How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office.
How dare they indeed.
You know, during the trial of the NYC WTC bombers, when they were trying the guys who were accused of the bombing, the person who worked for the truck rental place was asked who rented the vehicle and threw the courtroom into an uproar when he pointed out someone in the jury box.
Nice way to either load the jury or declare a mistrial.
In this case, because the defense lawyer himself was so closely connected to the situation, it should have, by all rights, disqualified him from being connected with the case in a conflict of interest.
It seems that what bothered him the most is that some ratted on him and exposed what he knew all along.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was intentional. That way, the whole thing would have to start over from scratch, giving more opportunity for it to be dropped on some technicality.
The proof is in the pudding. By the way if you are going to quote me do so in context so that you do not change the overall meaning of my posts or my opinion. Stop being dishonest.
The dirty little secret is that the Roman Catholic church despises the middle class.
What a shame it is to see Christians use lies as evangelical tools. It's reminiscent of the Islamic allowance for lying under certain situations.
The point was that you stated “Terminological consistency requires that a Protestant to be a real Christian heritic first have been a Catholic.”
There’s a difference between being a Christian heretic and a Catholic heretic. One can be labeled a heretic by the Catholic church because someone goes against the teachings of the Catholic church, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t Christians.
Christian and Catholic are not synonymous.
To be correct in terminology would be to label a Protestant who is a former Catholic not as a *Christian heretic*, but rather as a *Catholic heretic*. Protestants can be Christians too.
I am a Christian who was baptized and raised as a Catholic. Catholics can say I’m a Catholic heretic all they want, and I’ll still sleep tonight. Calling me a Christian heretic is patently untrue, but I’ll still sleep tonight because I know who I believe and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed to Himself.
It doesn’t matter what man thinks of me. What counts is what God thinks of me.
I don’t want any action by the judge, the prosecutor or the defense team to lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal. That is my concern with the conduct of all parties. I do think the Judge was way out of line. If the defense had not seen the allegations regarding his time in seminary he has every right to be upset.
But the important thing is if guilty verdicts are overturned it is the victims who suffer. I want the trials to be like Caeser’s wife. If the jury finds any of the priests guilty I want that verdict to stick and for full sentences to be carried out.
“Nobody needs to *defame* the Catholic church.”
Yes, but they do it anyway.
“The church has done plenty all by its lonesome to defame itself.”
No, it hasn’t.
“Then it could rightly say that it’s all slander and lies.”
Much of it is. There is also a lot of selective coverage.
“Martyrdom only works when someone has done nothing wrong.”
Does that mean Jesus is the only martyr then?
“No, I didn’t.”
Yes, you did.
“You implied you were a giraffe.”
No, I didn’t.
“This is heretical.”
By definition, nothing the Church believes can be heretical.
Just because someone has heretical beliefs doesn’t mean they’re all bad.
On the contrary, there have been many great people who have held heretical beliefs.
“What is this?
My denomination is bigger than yours, so nyah!!!!”
I can’t believe you’re saying this. On second though, yes I can.
Anyways, I said the fact that there are more Catholic threads on the religious forum than any other “denomination” could be explained by the fact that there are more Catholics than members of any other “denomination” in America and the world.
That shouldn’t have been an issue, but you were the one who disputed that, so here I am defending the fact that there are more Catholics than members of any other denomination.
It’s not ignorance.
These people know full well that they are lying.
BTW, Cronos, if you want ridiculous quotes from Protestants on your about page, this thread is a goldmine.
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.