Posted on 06/17/2004 11:20:09 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Bettinelli reports:
I just got this message from Rod Dreher:
"On Sunday, The Dallas Morning News will begin publishing the results of a major yearlong investigation into a largely uncovered aspect of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The series of stories are international in scope, and will make headlines nationally and overseas. I’m not at liberty to disclose details yet, but I’ve seen advanced copies of the articles, and they are devastating. I believe at this point, more details will be available on Friday morning, when one of the reporters on the series does an interview on National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition.” The stories will be available on the dallasnews.com website starting either late Saturday night or early Sunday morning.
I expect these stories to dominate conversation among concerned American Catholics next week, and into the early summer (because there will be much more to come; next week’s series only reveals part of what our reporters have uncovered and documented). These findings give lie to the claim from Church officialdom that this scandal is over. The cover-up continues."
Rod Dreher confirms:
"Not only stories, but photographs. I’ve seen the planned cover of Sunday’s DMN. The picture they’re going to run is a jaw-dropper...I hate to tell you this, but the bishops already know. They have known. They hoped you and I wouldn’t find out. That’s part of the story... Also, our people are now talking to national media about this. Starting Friday night, you might be seeing stuff about this. I’ll let Dom and others know if any early media appearances are scheduled."
(Excerpt) Read more at bettnet.dyndns.org ...
That's what they claim. How many altarboys do you have to diddle to lose that claim?
No need for clarification. You got it.
For one thing, you need to get your story straight when you use your bio to attack the Church. You keep changing it. It's probably highly fictionalized, either on purpose or because you were too young to understand, but you could at least keep it consistent.
For another thing, as I've pointed out, you said the Church opposed freedom for Iraqis, which is totally false. You said the Church (it was actually certain bishops) moved abusive priests around SO THEY COULD abuse more kids -- obviously that was not the intent.
Your disgusting accusations have no place in civilized discussion.
I'm curious why you feel you can't go back. It's JESUS who is the center of our Faith, not the priests.
If we were autonomous like most other denominations nobody would ever know. We could make up rules as we go along, we could pick apart Scripture, we could....
I think many miss that distinction. I don't for one second think that any of the scandal is okay. There are many priests and bishops that should have been at the very least defrocked and perhaps ex-communicated. Some should have been prosecuted.
I also have to wonder how much of the "new scandal" is fueld by some Bishops taking a stand against politicians. I think the laity is more supportive of that than the media likes.
It's past time for fence-sitting.
Okay. I understand.
I have to go...it will be a while before I share a story about my family's history again on FR, that's for sure.
Not a slam at you, but really, some of the comments have been over the top and quite distasteful.
You are not being honest. I am not "defending" the practice you describe. I don't believe that it happened, or at least not on the widespread basis you claim it did, and I am quite certain that it was contrary to Church law. Does that sounds like "defending" to you?
You are now accusing me of saying and doing things I didn't say and didn't do. I'm outta here.
And Alberta's Child has it right in #67.
And they could because most laymen didn't know any better. Now, clerics can't get away with arbitrariness like this.
And they could because most laymen didn't know any better. Now, clerics can't get away with arbitrariness like this.
But I bet your bottom dollar that this pending revelation took up most of their time.
Therefore Christ's Church cannot subsist in the Catholic Church?
Since Vatican II, this is not the case. Such people (providing they are not in grave sin) are welcomed at the Table. If they are in grave sin, they are welcomed at the Confessional, then at the Table. Come back home, my friend. Things are a little different.
Why did your father walk out of [Catholic] church on the day JFK was killed? I don't see the connection. Just a coincidence?
You are a disgusting excuse for a Christian.
I have not changed my story with the exception that, without going back to look, I said that Father John said "we" could not receive the sacrament anymore. That is the generic we of an 7 year old who was too young to attend church alone without a parent accompanying her.
Your accusations are a disgrace and have made me more upset than I've ever been on Free Republic.
Please do not post to me again. I left this thread permanently and will not be back. COntinue bashing away. It must make your day.
You're correct. The homosexuals successfully infiltrated the church in the 60's and we are all now reaping the whirlwind.
My mothers reaction along with many others was that priest was a moron. (it takes all kinds you know)
My mothers decision was to sit in the same pew she always did. The priest only remained in that parish several years. She continued an additional 10 years.
On the other hand, now there are some priests who are afraid to confront much of anything. We've gone too far in the other direction.
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.