Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 10/16/2011 4:48:31 AM PDT by JimWayne
And we just continue to eat our own here. With the ever increasing need for conservatives to stand shoulder to shoulder, we have a small group here intent on creating factions & discord, & all in what they deem the name of the Lord. Religious narcissism.
Remember, Obama is a Protestant & a socialist. What’s your point?
Encouraged by the BBC over 6,000,000 unborn children have been butchered in Britain since the Abortion Act of 1968. The dead tell no tales. At least the Spanish did not butcher these children.
In Sweden, that model of enlightened modernity over 70,000 female inmates of homes and industrial school were forcibly sterilized. Such are the wages of enlightenment. Christians and conservatives are often hypocritical. Liberal/progressiveism is a lie.
When asked who Jesus Christ was, Obama's initial response was "a great teacher", not "the Son of God".
Obama is no Protestant.
He's either an atheist or a Muslim.
Good points; well put.
Spaniards today rue the day Franco died; their country & culture are unrecognizable. Now they allow “gay marriage” while some parts have outlawed bullfights - hardly progress.
That is precisely how Muslims refer to our Lord.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
May every nation be blessed enough to have its Caudillo in the time of need.
JOHN WATERS
Fri, Oct 14, 2011
Those attempting to expose this agenda are being censored and accused of defending the indefensible
I HAD an odd feeling last Friday morning, listening to an RTÉ apology broadcast on Morning Ireland. We don’t think of published apologies as journalism, but this went to the heart of matters the Irish media refuses point-blank to ventilate. Something was being “reported” that generally remains unacknowledged.
The apology stated that, on May 23rd last, RTÉ broadcast a Prime Time programme “A Mission to Prey”, which accused Fr Kevin Reynolds, parish priest at Ahascragh, Galway, of raping a minor while a missionary in Kenya and fathering a child as a result.
Before the broadcast, Fr Reynolds had made repeated but fruitless efforts to alert the Prime Time journalists to the falsity of the allegations, even offering to undergo a paternity test. RTÉ’s apology acknowledged that the programme should not have been broadcast and said it “fully and unreservedly” accepted that Fr Reynolds was “entirely innocent”, that the allegations were “baseless, without any foundation whatever and untrue”.
The apology could hardly be more explicit in its admission of error, but, had he not been able definitively to demonstrate his innocence with a paternity test, the programme would have cast Fr Reynolds forever among the growing legions of discredited Catholic clerics.
The allegations seemed of a piece with the broader picture, sketched out over several years in Irish media, of predatory priests abusing their power and positions. The “victims” had spoken out, and victims, as we know, are always to be believed. The priest denied it, but he would, wouldn’t he?
This goes beyond slackness. There was no apology for the title of the programme: “A Mission to Prey”. Here, the allegations against Fr Reynolds acquired an added dimension of toxicity, imputing to him and implicitly to other Catholic missionaries an abominable premeditation.
Behind the priestly vocation and outward altruism of church initiatives in foreign countries, that title insinuated, is a grotesque design to abuse and exploit. The title echoes a malevolent mentality now rampant in the Irish media, which, where the church is concerned, no longer considers it enough to state facts – the case must be augmented with sneers and vicious innuendos.
Carefully nurtured public prejudice ensures that, when condemning a church figure, it’s impossible to go too far.
It goes deeper than one bad story. There is now a venomous culture in the Irish media directed at faith in general and Catholicism in particular. For some years, anyone suggesting that coverage of clerical sex abuse scandals was concealing a deeper antipathy towards Catholicism has been silenced by journalists insisting they were only doing their jobs.
These shushings were invariably followed by tautological lists of the wrongs of the church, as though past findings prove all present and future charges. Anyone seeking to refer to the background radiation, to adduce evidence of media bias and hostility toward the church that went beyond the call of journalistic duty or the remit of the public interest, was dismissed as an “apologist” or worse.
The language and assumptions pertaining to virtually all media treatment of such matters are generally so tendentious as to preclude any possibility of fairness or truth. Contrary to the standard protestations, this is not just a matter of an adversarial ethic that for the moment happens for good reasons to be on the church’s case.
Under cover of the legitimate requirement to expose wrongdoing by church figures resides a vicious demeanour of hostility and dismissiveness towards Catholicism, which it is impossible to challenge without being accused of defending the indefensible.
There is a deeper issue. Tuning in to what purport to be discussions about Catholicism on radio or television has become a surreal experience accompanied by this odd sense that, sometime in the recent past, it has been communally agreed that religious belief is all merely dangerous hokum, recently superseded by advancing “knowledge” and “understandings”.
Thus, although most of the population still lays formal claim to a Catholic identity, anti-Catholic positions and an irreligious sense of how the great questions confronting mankind are to be addressed appear to have been adopted by journalists without consultation or discussion. Catholicism and its perspectives are unworthy of consideration.
Before our eyes, under cover of the clerical abuse issue, Irish society is being remade and by osmosis a new reality is being fashioned, undemocratically, aggressively and with a total indifference to facts or truth. Contempt for Catholicism, and the demonisation and censorship of those who draw attention to this syndrome, have enabled a process of creeping de-absolutisation, now gradually supplanting the core content of our culture.
Actually, it isn’t so much that, as you put it, “it is the Catholics who are socialists in many parts of the world,” as it is that parts of the world that used to be Catholic are now socialist. Socialism does not allow for religion, being the younger sister of communism, outside of worship of the State.
Like wise, the Beeb has an overt agenda, which in this case is not only their historical anti-Catholic bias, but also their desire to hawk a tv show and thus, increase it’s audience.
The issue of your bias is a another matter. Here are a few facts for you, about adoption in Spain. First, the links themselves:
http://www.velascolawyers.com/en/civil-law/114-adoption-process-in-spain.html
http://www.adoptionpolicy.org/pdf/eu-spain.pdf
http://library.adoption.com/articles/international-adoption-spain.html
Some quotes:
“Adoption in Spain is a legal process that follows very strict rules in order to protect the interest of the child to the fullest. Law 21/1997 of 11th November introduced several requirements for parents requesting adoption and the adopted child, both nationally and internationally.”
From a legal point of view the adoption process is long and complicated. Here a Spanish child can only be adopted when he is abandoned, the parents are known and have authorized the adoption or if the parents are losing the “patria potestad” (the parental authority, in practice when the parents are deemed inadequate for parenting). This leads to a situation where there are children in reception centres that cannot be adopted and their status there is merely temporary, so the family will only have the possibility of receiving the minor in kinship foster care.
The adoption process in Spain is very complex, even though it has to be said that it is simpler than in countries like the UK and Denmark.
Spanish judges make adoption orders, not the Church. Another interesting quote: “Under the Spanish Civil Code, an adoption order can be made on a joint basis in favor of married or unmarried couples living together. This is the only circumstance in which the law permits the joint adoption of a child by two people. Specifically, the Spanish adoption law does not permit adoption by homosexual couples, since homosexual couples cannot marry under Spanish law and cannot be consideredas a de facto couple for the purposes of the Additional Provision 3 of the Law of 11 November 1987.”
Quote from Section III Adoption Procedure A. Who makes the adoption order?
“In Spain, as in other developed jurisdictions, a judge grants the adoption order. Before the entry of the adoption order, the public entities of the Autonomous Regions (”Communidades Autónomas”) responsible for the protection of minors handle the adoption procedure. Prospective adopters have to address their applications for an adoption order to these entities. Once an application to adopt is made, the prospective parents undergo a detailed assessment by the relevant public entity. Only if the public entity is satisfied as to the applicants’ eligibility and suitability to adopt will it then proceed to make a recommendation in their favor. Without such a recommendation, the judge can generally not proceed with the prospective adopters’ application for an adoption order.”
These are in English for people who wish to adopt Spanish babies thru adults (yes, in the right circumstances, that may happen, to a point), but they also emphasize that foreign would-be adopters are quite unlikely to receive since there are few Spanish babies available even for Spanish couples wishing to adopt, much less English or American or what have you.
There’s a lot more here than I honestly ever wanted to know about adoption procedures and law in Spain, but I think it’s safe to call this general topic at least mostly bogus. You’re still free to dislike the Catholic Church if you’re set on it. We do still live in a somewhat free country. But as to the contention of the article? Meh, and nah.
Just as a by-the-way, even if Mr. Moore was raised Catholic, even if he calls himself one, he would, by definition of his actions, be an exceptionally bad one. At the best. But then, you nailed it by calling him a socialist. You cannot be a good Catholic and a good socialist, in my very humble opinion.
btw - any typographical errors herein are mine.
Hey Doc - please post that as a stand alone thread.
Joining my request to narses that your post be a stand alone thread.
Sinful behavior cannot discredit the Church because it was established exclusively for the benefit of sinners.
If we are to believe you, Texteacher, then your own personal sins discredit your own religion, and as such we would say “shame on you and your religions sucks.”
But we don’t believe you.
People who want excuses to reject God will always find them. Surely you know better than your post. I will chalk it up to hastiness, and not to thoughtful reflection.
“Sinful behavior cannot discredit the Church because it was established exclusively for the benefit of sinners.
If we are to believe you, Texteacher, then your own personal sins discredit your own religion, and as such we would say “shame on you and your religions sucks.”
By the numbers of babies adopted, it never crossed my mind that the adoptions were done by individuals. It appeared to me it was accomplished through the institution of the church. Whether the adoptions were done with “good intentions” or not it was deceptive.
I really do not understand your animosity to my opinion. I am actually sympathetic to the plight of all in this situation. I feel motives for adoptions may well have been well meant. However, just because I do not like the information does not make it false. My comment was on the credibility of the situation.
Personally, I feel that the Catholic religion is the first battlefront in the attempts to eliminate Christianity and or its influence.
It appeared to me it was accomplished through the institution of the church.Really? Why? That is like assuming that because hundreds of Baptists every year (or more) get arrested for drunk driving that drunk driving is a Baptist custom. If it was a policy of the Institutional Church, then it would have been adopted as such. Can you show anywhere that such a policy was adopted as official Church policy?
“Really? Why? That is like assuming that because hundreds of Baptists every year (or more) get arrested for drunk driving that drunk driving is a Baptist custom. If it was a policy of the Institutional Church, then it would have been adopted as such. Can you show anywhere that such a policy was adopted as official Church policy?”
Due to the opening information of the post, “Full headline: 300,000 babies stolen from their parents - and sold for adoption: Haunting BBC documentary exposes 50-year scandal of baby trafficking by the Catholic church in Spain”
I hope you are right and the Catholic Church was not involved in the adoptions. It is difficult to believe for an average of 6000 times a year hospital workers were able to get around hospital bureaucracy and administration and were able to transfer babies and parenthood. I hope that you and the other individual replying to my comments and POV are correct, it was merely personal sins of individuals and much like a Baptist (of which I am not) getting arrested for drunk driving. However, all is required for a drunk driving Baptist is a drunk Baptist and a car. However for 300,000 unauthorized adoptions to take place over 50 years with just a nurse circumventing procedures and personnel takes more scheming than Baptists being arrested for drunk driving.
To RECAP my POV, I hope the adoptions were by individuals and NOT the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic but do get tired of the Catholic bashing. Although NOT a Catholic, I was personally offended by the first comment. I merely stated in my first comment, the information did not seem to be based on lies.
There's the sickness of people who, while in the hospital, refuse the therapies offered, and then there's the validity of the therapies. It's good to know the difference.
If one struggles through the social encyclicals, one finds that socialism is explicitly rejected. A lot of clergy and a WHOLE lot of lay people have not done so, or have and reject the Magisterium they profess to follow.
If we threw such people out, we would defy our mission to reach out to the lost AND we would be called intolerant and inquisitorial. We continue to reach out to them so we are accused of being as vicious as the publicans, wine-bibbers, and prostitutes for whom we care.
Same old, same old.
That's not my experience. I grew up in the high church wing of Anglicanism and lo, how they have fallen, through bending over backwards to tolerate the intolerable.
As a Catholic, I find that we conservatives are always tugging at our clergy to go kick some butt, and they keep saying they are sent to the lost sheep. The last 40 or so years of Catholicism have been an exercise in toleration to the extent of doctrinal, moral, and even liturgical limpness. Praise God, before I die we may see, as I think we are seeing, some correction of that.
My impression, and I am comforted by it, is that my Church lies skew-wise to all secular political theory, including mine. I think she's right where she belongs.
Aut Deus, aut malus.
A great teacher except for the part where He said, "I and the Father are one." A great teacher except that he was as nutty as a fruitcake or just flat out lying.
Or maybe He was right when He said that ....
Reading the responses should make one understand why moderate Muslims make excuses for terrorists, and progressives do the same for Communist regimes.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal (and Papists note: Pascal was one of yourn)
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.