Posted on 01/13/2012 10:31:42 AM PST by RnMomof7
A German Catholic priest has admitted 280 counts of sexual abuse involving three boys over almost a decade, the BBC reported. About 2,800 pornographic images -- including several of his victims -- were found on the priest's computer.
Named only as Andreas L, the priest, 46, told a court in Braunschweig he did not think he was doing harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You can't be serious........
I've posted that verse countless times in debates concerning Scripture and the Catholic church's false claims to have written it and thereby claim authority over it.
Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture before the Catholic church every put it's stamp of approval on it at whatever council some hundreds of years later by canonizing it.
Exactly.
The only reason some people want to hard for there to be multiple interpretations is so that they don't have to obey the clear teachings of Scripture.
That has got to be the pettiest and most lame attempt to discredit something a non-Catholic has said that I have EVER seen......
Maybe you missed the fact your post 92 was deleted for making this exact same statement and thus breaking the rules which you have just done again a second time in this post.
Please stop breaking the rules by saying other posters are "lying."
We disagree. That doesn't mean one of us is lying. But it does mean you are breaking the stated rules of the forum.
But it is true. If one can not even bother learning to spell the doctrine they oppose to me that means they have not bothered to learn any facts concerning the doctrine. So to claim it as a cause of abuse is nonsense.
My reply got deleted but one thing I did write is that if Dr E had written that one reason some children are vulnerable to abuse by clergy is that some children are taught to regard clergy as always being right with a direct line to God. This along with the fact clergy are authority figures means evil people use that office to commit the foulest crimes against the innocent. Those were not my exact words but that was the gist of it.
The doctrine of Alter Christi is that the priest when adminstering the Sacraments is acting in the person of Christ. It has nothing to do with the abuse scandal and to claim Catholic parents willy nilly subject their children to abuse because of this doctrine is a trunkful of vapors. It is also calumuny against Catholic parents.
Evil priests no doubt took advantage of their office to commit abuse, just as any other authority figure would. The problem is that for many decades it was just not admitted that priests could do evil and children were left defenseless when confronted with that evil. HOw could this “man of God’ do something wrong?
Pedophiles use every weapon in their arsenal to wage psycholgical war on their victims. They isolate their victims from family or friends by telling them lies to make them believe the abuser alone cares about them (the most violent may use threats or physical harm to isolate his or her victim) They twist what happens to convince victims they share in the responsibility for the abuse. They shift definitions of right and wrong, grooming victims into easier and easier acceptance of immoral and abusive behavior.
This is what pedophiles do, whether priests, teachers, police officers, uncles, cousins, mom’s and/or baby sitters.
Oops one correction
“one thing I did write is that if Dr E had written that one reason some children are vulnerable to abuse by clergy is that some children are taught to regard clergy as always being right with a direct line to God. This along with the fact clergy are authority figures means evil people use that office to commit the foulest crimes against the innocent. I would have agreed with that.”
I left out the last sentence and I wanted to be clear that if that had been the argument it would have had merit.
I will reword it to leave that part out.
“The really awful thing is that even if you think you are somehow helping by bringing attention to the very real horror of the abuse, the truth is by posting attacks on Catholic doctrine that do not reflect what that doctrine actually teaches, as the reason for the abuse it only serves to aid those who wish to deny it all together; by making claims so monstrous people can feel that anti Catholic prjudice so inflates the crisis to place doubt on the veracity of even the most sober of accusations.”
In other words if it appears your concern only is a matter of being Anti Catholic it gives those people who dismiss abuse allegations and reports of being evidence of such anti Catholicism something to point out and say “see we were right it is just about hating the Catholic Church.”
The truth is horrible enough and criticism and outright anger is very justified without resorting to misunderstandings of doctrine as a way of placing blame.
You want to rail against Bishops who moved priests around, have at it. They did. Want to claim too many people refused to pursue criminal priests, you are right. Want to write more heads should have and should roll, I am with you 100%.
But if you are going to blame doctrine at least know what that doctrine is and show why you believe it is the reason for the abuse.
Blasphemy.
Christ can and does act in His own person. Trust Him. He knows how to do it. He doesn't need any ersatz Christs acting in His place.
This is another great example of how the RCC simply negates/ignores the Holy Spirit.
Read the Bible.
"And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not" -- Mark 13:21
I reworded the reply to remove the statement about lying. Please let me know if the modification is in line with the rules for the forum. If not I will edit it again.
That is a valid opinion about the doctrine. You disagree with it because you believe it is blasphemous. You post a verse which you believe supports that view.
I don’t agree but given your beliefs I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion.
PS, the more accurate term is Persona Christi. If you don’t believe in the Sacraments the doctrine would not make any sense and would seem to displace Christ.
But the Catholic Church does believe in Sacraments.
I am not “anti Catholic.”
I am pro Scripture and anti authoritarian interpretation by old men in dresses.
I am pro truth and anti fables, superstition and errors.
I am Pro Jesus Christ and anti “other Christs.”
There are two sacraments instituted by Christ - Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
I still don’t get your vexation about robes.
You may not be anti Catholic but that does seem to be the main point of many of your posts. Perhaps I am reading too much into them.
I am pro truth too. Which is why I really have no problem with you or anyone else posting what is true about the abuse even when it puts Bishops and priests in a very bad light. Evil hates the truth. Christians have nothing to fear from the truth. It may be painful but tolerating lies and denying evil leads to the far greater pain. Souls are at stake.
Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and to Him every knee shall bow. He also has a big batch of millstones at the ready.
Do you have anything akin to Confirmation in your Church? If you do how is it regarded?
The reason it is intolerable to accuse another RF poster of telling a lie is that it also attributes motive, the intent to deceive. Words such as "false" "error" "wrong" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I most respectfully disagree. To take another posters quote and write it shows what they believe is not making it personal.
This is the post in question.
I had written “The doctrine of Alter Christi is that the priest when adminstering the Sacraments is acting in the person of Christ”
Dr E responded with “Blasphemy.”
Therefore Dr. E believes this doctrine is blasphemous.
SO it is not an opinion or making it personal when I write Dr E believes the Catholic doctrine of Persona/Alter Christi is blasphemous. It is a statement of fact based on what she herself posted.
I edited my other post to remove any reference to lying.
PS. I would assume Dr. E disagrees with any doctrine she finds to be blasphemous. It has nothing to do with motive but everything to do with her faith. There well may be other reasons but in the context of this discussion she disagrees with the doctrine because it is blasphemous. Those are her words not mine.
Had Dr. Eckleburg not written “blasphemous” and I had simply assumed that was her reason, yes I would have been mind reading.
If you had said "You called that statement blasphemy and offered a verse to support your post. You have disagreed with the doctrine." it would not have been attributing motive but simply recapping the previous posts.
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.