Posted on 05/17/2002 5:43:08 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
The Archdiocese of Boston turned former priest Paul J. Mahan loose on the public in the mid-1990s after he had been diagnosed as a ``sociopath'' and a ``threat to adolescent males,'' according to documents released yesterday.
In a sign of just how sick therpists deemed Mahan, doctors at St. Luke Institute in Suitland, Md., expelled him as hopeless in 1995 - kicking him out of a hospital that has specialized in treating clergy with severe sexual disorders.
At least one plaintiff alleges he was raped by Mahan at a home on the North Shore soon after the priest was discharged by the archdiocese without a warning to civil authorities or former parishioners.
``They released a sexual predator into the Marblehead community and did not warn a soul,'' said Joseph G. Abromovitz, a lawyer suing the church and Mahan on behalf of two of the ex-priest's nephews, both of whom claim he raped them from 1993 to 1995. ``My clients were told Mahan was on a routine sabbatical when he was in fact being treated for incurable pedophilia,'' Abromovitz said.
Mitchell Garabedian, the lawyer who won the release of Mahan's personnel file, and represents 11 of his accusers, made two of the documents available yesterday after Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney ordered that the archdiocese hand over the records.
Garabedian said he would review the full file before commenting in detail, but added: ``These psychiatric characteristics obviously are of some concern.''
The latest documents unveiled in the Roman Catholic Church abuse scandal include a summer 1995 evaluation from the Southdown treatment center in Ontario, Canada, a facility where now-defrocked pedophile John J. Geoghan was also shipped by the church.
The Southdown report states that Mahan's ``behavior has been aggressive and intrusive and in some instances predatory.'' Therapist Michael John Sy wrote Mahan acknowledged his ``high risk for re-offending'' against children.
But more damning information is contained in a September 1995 letter, also released yesterday, in which the Rev. Brian M. Flatley, then a top archdiocesan official handling sexual abuse matters, argued that Mahan should be dismissed from the priesthood. There had been eight sexual misconduct allegations against Mahan, ``a number of them involving more than one child,'' Flatley wrote.
Flatley cites an incendiary series of evaluations from St. Luke covering Mahan's two separate visits there - one in 1994, a second that spanned late 1994 and early 1995 - that made clear he was a predator.
Upon being discharged after his first 1994 visit, Flatley wrote, Mahan ``immediately lapsed into his pattern of predatory behavior.''
A therapist there concluded ``there was a real question about Father Mahan's ability to tell the truth,'' Flatey's letter states.
After Mahan was sent back to St. Luke for a second time, Flatley wrote, Mahan's therapist telephoned to say he was recommending the priest leave the facility.
``It was his judgment that Father Mahan was not able to be helped at St. Luke Institute and perhaps not anywhere,'' Flatley wrote in a letter to Rev. Richard G. Lennon, one of Bernard Cardinal Law's top aides. The therapist ``is convinced that Father Mahan is exhibiting the symptoms of a sociopath,'' Flatley continued. ``He is a dangerous person. He is a threat to adolescent males.''
In addition to being a chronic liar in therapy - ``he has a lapse of memory whenever there is a victim involved'' - Mahan also misled therapists by saying he had stopped drinking when in fact he had not, Flatley wrote.
At the very time church officials were exchanging the damning assessments, they stood by as Mahan ended his priestly career and moved unfettered to Marblehead.
Mahan later relocated to Arlington, Va., where he worked at a Radio Shack near two elementary schools until earlier this year.
Repeated efforts by the Herald to reach Mahan, including visiting his Virginia apartment building in March, were unsuccessful.
His lawyer, Martin Cosgrove, had fought to keep the psychiatric data away from Garabedian and other plaintiffs' lawyers. Attorneys for the Boston Herald and other media argued in court that the Mahan papers, like the Geoghan files, should be publicly filed.
Flatley concluded his 1995 letter by writing that Mahan should be allowed to leave the priesthood, lest he ``be a source of scandal to the people.'' Garabedian's plaintiffs, including William and Paul Oberle of Boston, allege they were abused by Mahan between 1969 and 1982 at St. Ann's in Dorchester and St. Joseph's in Needham.
Most studies I've seen from disinterested researchers indicate that the two largest predictors of whether a guy grows up to be homosexual are: 1) having been sexually molested by a male at a young age (and the more the molestation occurs, the more likely to end up homosexual), and 2) having a loveless or hateful relationship with ones father or older brother. Being unable to establish healthy relationships with other male children also is a statistically significant predictor. Finally, in society today, some are actually actively encouraging kids to engage in homosexual sex. This is an indirect form of molestation, and contributes to the increase in homosexuality that we see. - - If you want your kids to be normal (heterosexual), you can increase the odds by: never lettting them be molested by anyone, establishing a loving and healthy relationship with them, teaching them that homosexuality is wrong and disordered, telling them at an appropriate age some of the digusting things that occur in the common gay lifestyle (like anal intercourse, promiscuous sex with anonymous partners) and helping them to have healthy 'guy' relationships with male kids. Sports or Boy Scouts are good ways to help with this.
Sure, if the priests are hypocrites and liers. Since I'm questioning where these molesting priests, coverup bishops, and cardinals will spend eternity, I strenuously object to their guiding parishioners in search of eternal life.
They cannot possibly be considered qualified to provide such guidance.
Ten Reasons Why Christians And Catholics Do Not Agree by Dr. Robert A. Morey
"....ten arguments proving that Catholic teaching and Biblical Christianity cannot agree...":
The 1994 Catholic Catechism will be used as the main source of information in regards to Catholic doctrine, contrasting it with the Bible's view on the same issues presented.
1. Mary, Co-Mediatrix and Queen of Heaven.
Catholic Position:
"Therefore the blessed Virgin is invoked in the church under the titles Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix." p.252, # 969
" Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things." p. 252, # 966
The Biblical Position:
Advocate
"It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." (Romans 8:34; cf. Hebrews 7:25)
“If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.” 1 John 2:1
Mediator
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1Timothy 2:5
"And for the this cause, He (Christ) is the mediator of a new testament...” Hebrews 9:15
Helper
"Behold God is mine helper...” Psalm 54:4
"And I will pray the Father and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of Truth..."John 14:16,17
Queen of Heaven
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.” Jeremiah 7:18
"But we will burn incense unto the queen of heaven and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and ours princes...” Jeremiah 44:17
Remarks:
Mary is given titles, which are exclusively God's. The Bible states that there is but one who mediates on mankind’s behalf, Christ, yet Catholicism contradicts this basic fact by assigning a second person to mediatorial duties.
Mary is also given a pagan title, Queen of Heaven, something which God totally abhors, for there is no queen who reigns alongside God. There is but one Christ Jesus who is the King of kings and Lord of lords. (Rev. 17:14, 19:16).
The veneration of Mary is not only foreign to the Bible, but condemned altogether by the Lord himself, noting that he repeatedly denied any special distinction and uniqueness in regards to his mother’s status:
“Then His mother and brothers come to Him and could not approach Him because of the crowd. And it was told Him by some, who said, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.’
“But He answered and said to them, ‘My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.’” (Lk. 8:19-21 N.K.J.V)
“While he was speaking, a woman from the crowd called out and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed: He replied, ‘Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” (Lk. 11:27-28)
Reason #2 The Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary continued to the next post.
Con't... from #111:
Ten Reasons Why Christians And Catholics Do Not Agree by Dr. Robert A. Morey
2. The Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption of Mary
Catholic Position:
"By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." p.124, # 493
"Mary is the most excellent fruit of redemption. From the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life." p.128, # 508
"Finally the Immaculate Virgin... was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory..." p.252,#966
Biblical Position:
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Rom 3:23
"As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one.” Rom 3:10
"...the soul that sins it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4
(Mary speaking): "... and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” Luke 1:47
Note- If Mary is without sin, she has no need for a savior.
Remarks:
The Vatican promotes the idea that Mary was immaculately conceived i.e., born without sin and because she was free from impurities she did not die, but ascended into heaven.
Yet the Bible clearly rejects this and declares that none have been born free from sin with the exception of Jesus Christ, the Lord. The Bible also states that the sinner must die and this includes Mary, making it impossible for her to ascend to heaven without dying.
Some Catholic apologists counter the idea that all are sinners by suggesting that there are certain exceptions to this, such as stillborn and aborted infants who have never sinned. This would make it possible for Catholics to assert that Mary also was an exception to this general rule.
Unfortunately for this argument, the Bible does not make any exception, apart from Christ, since infants themselves are included in the list:
“Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Ps. 51:5 N.K.J.V.
Although infants are conceived in sin, they are not held accountable for sin until they knowingly act in disobedience. The verse basically affirms that all are born with a sinful nature, making it natural for us to desire sin over righteousness. This is commonly referred to as the doctrine of original sin, that all inherit the first man’s sinful nature (c.f. Rom. 5:12) The Catholic church itself upholds the view that infants are conceived with a sinful nature, making it necessary for them to be baptized in order to be restored to purity. (See #9)
Another attempt to justify Mary’s sinlessness is the Catholic appeal to Luke 1:28 and 1:42:
“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among woman... And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among woman, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Doay-Rheims
The term “full of grace” is the Greek kecharitomene, from the root charitoo, meaning “favored one.” Hence, for Mary to be filled with grace would imply her sinlessness. Furthermore, the term “blessed,” eulogeo, is used of both Mary and Christ, “the fruit of thy womb.” This would again imply Mary’s sinlessness, since she is equated with Christ, her sinless son.
If these assertions are true, this would imply that Christians are sinless since they are also blessed, being filled with grace:
“to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He bestowed grace (favor, i.e., charitoo) upon us in the Beloved.” Eph. 1:6
“Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed (Gr. eulogeo) of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Mt. 25:34 Doay-Rheims
These passages make it quite obvious that trying to find biblical support for Mary’s immaculate conception is clearly impossible.
To justify Mary’s bodily assumption, Catholics refer to Revelation 12:1-6 as implicitly alluding to the doctrine:
“Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars... And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.”
It is obvious that the Child refers to Christ (c.f. Rev. 19:15; Ps. 2:9) This in effect would make Mary the woman who is clothed with heavenly splendor, supporting the Catholic doctrine.
A careful examination of Scripture soundly refutes this unfortunately unsound exegesis, establishing the woman’s identity as Israel:
“Then he (Joseph) dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.’
“So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, ‘What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?’” Gen. 37:9-10 N.K.J.V.
(Note - The reason why Joseph saw eleven stars instead of twelve, is due to the fact that he himself was the twelfth.)
“As a woman with child is in pain and cries out in her pangs, when she draws near to the time of her delivery’
“so have we (i.e., Israel), been in your sight, O LORD. We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have, as it were, brought forth wind...” Is. 26:17-18a N.K.J.V. (c.f. Hosea 2:1-23)
The final evidence establishing the woman’s identity as Israel comes from Revelation 12:6:
“Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.”
Contrast this with the Lord’s own words to his Jewish followers:
“Therefore when you see the ’ abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those in Judea flee to the mountains.” Mt. 24:15-16 N.K.J.V.
Hence, Mary at no time ever ran to the wilderness fleeing from the Devil (symbolized here by the Dragon), and yet this is precisely what shall happen to the Jews during Antichrist’s seven year tribulational reign.
(Note - Some see this passage as referring to the arrival of the Roman Army, which besieged Jerusalem, destroying the Temple in A.D. 70; leading Jewish Christian believers to flee to the small town of Pella, near the Sea of Galilee.)
Furthermore, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, vol. VII, pp. 378-381) admits that the origin of this belief finds no Scriptural support:
“...the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture... The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless... It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of Faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted... [In 1854 Pope Pius IX defined the dogma] ‘which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin in the first instant of her conception.’”
According to church historian J.N.D. Kelly, church Fathers such as Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt that Mary had sinned and had even doubted Christ. (Early Christian Doctrines, p.493)
Even Catholic scholar Ludwig Ott admits, “Neither Greek nor Latin Fathers explicitly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary.” (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1960, p.201)
A list of just some of the many who opposed the Immaculate Conception include: Augustine, Chrysostom, Eusebius, Ambrose, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Cardinal Cajetan and Popes Gregory the Great and Innocent III.
Ott also indicates, “The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in transitus-narratives of the fifth-sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the Faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing.” (Ibid., pp.209-210)
Yet, Ott conveniently forgets to mention to his readers that these narratives were deemed heretical by the church of the day and anathematized by Gelasius, the very bishop of Rome!
Finally, not all Catholic theologians believed that Mary ascended without dying, but that she “suffered a temporal death,” much like other mortals. (Ibid., p.207)
In fact, the idea of Mary ascending to heaven without dying was not made an official doctrine of the Catholic Faith until 1950 by Pope Pius XII, nearly twenty centuries after Christ!
Reason #3 The Perpetual Virgin - Con't .. to next post.
Con't... from #112:
Ten Reasons Why Christians And Catholics Do Not Agree by Dr. Robert A. Morey
3- The Perpetual Virgin
The belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus is altogether denied throughout the Holy Scriptures. In Matthew 1:25 we read that Joseph “knew her not until she (Mary) had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” R.S.V.
The Greek term for until, eos ou, refers to a point in time where the action of the main verb comes to an end, changes to some other kind of action or is simply reversed.
Two examples from the Gospels illustrate this rule more clearly:
“And as they were descending from the mountain Jesus commanded them, saying: ‘Tell the vision to no one until (eos ou) the Son of Man is raised up from the dead.” Mt. 17:3
The Lord forbade Peter, James and John from sharing what had just transpired before their eyes, namely his transfiguration. (vv. 1-8) And yet, after his ascension in glory, they were free to tell anyone whom they chose (c.f. 2 Peter 1:16-18)
“And behold! I am sending forth upon you that which is promised by my Father. You, therefore, abide in the city until (eos ou) you become clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:4a
After they had received God’s promise of the Holy Spirit, the disciples did not remain in the city, i.e., Jerusalem but went forth from there throughout Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (c.f. Acts 1:8)
Naturally, the term eos ou clearly implies that the situation eventually changes or reverses itself and does not remain the same.
Hence, the fact in Matthew 1:25 strongly suggests that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth to Christ as a virgin.
Furthermore, Luke 2:6 states that upon arriving in Bethlehem, “she (Mary) gave birth to her firstborn son...” (R.S.V.) That Mary had a firstborn son strongly suggests that other children followed, since if Christ were her only child the text would have stated “only son”.
In fact, the Bible even mentions the names of Jesus’ siblings:
“...’Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers [Gr. adelphoi] James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters [Gr. adelphai] too, are they not all here with us?’” Mt. 13:55-56
“After this, he and his mother, [his] brothers, and his disciples went down to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days.” Jn. 2:12 N.A.B.
“So his brothers said to him ... For his brothers did not believe in him.” Jn. 7:3,5 (c.f. Jn. 7:10) N.A.B.
“Do we have no right to take on a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” 1.Cor. 9:5
“But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” Gal. 1:19 N.A.B.
Certain Catholics have attempted to change brothers and sisters into relatives i.e., that these were Jesus’ cousins. Yet, the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Greek words adelphoi and adelphai “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation ... that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.” (Vol. IX, p.337)
However, if it were relatives that were being spoken of, a different Greek word (syggenon) could have been used as in the case of Luke 21:16
Furthermore, the famous Jewish historian Flavious Josephus affirms that Christ had at least one brother who was obviously well known:
He (Ananus) converted the council of judges and brought before it the brother of Jesus - the one called “Christ” - whose name was James, and certain others. Accusing them of transgressing the Law he delivered them up for stoning. But those of the city considered to be the most fair-minded and strict concerning the laws were offended at this and sent to the king urging him to order Ananus to take such actions no longer. Antiquities, 20. 9-1, pp. 200-201
Amazingly, this is still not even enough to convince Catholic apologists of the fact that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of the Lord and that she did indeed conceive other children after him. Their proof to refute the evidence lies in the fact that these siblings are never called the children of Mary nor is she called their mother, and by necessity would either mean that they were in fact Jesus’ cousins or Joseph’s children from a previous marriage.
If this logic is valid then it must also be denied that Joseph was the Father of Jesus’ siblings since they are never referred to as Joseph’s children nor is he ever called their father. This exposes the logical fallacy in Catholic thinking since their argumentation is clearly non-sequitor and does not flow into the conclusions which they arrive at.
Reason #4- Purgatory Con't ... to next post
Interesting. The Catholic Church has become a disgusting ENABLER. This whole thing makes me sick.
You don't need a truth serum. Many of them demonstrate this every day.
Indeed. Just look at Cardinal outLaw.
Con't... from #113:
Ten Reasons Why Christians And Catholics Do Not Agree by Dr. Robert A. Morey
4- Purgatory
C.P. "All who die in God's grace and friendship, because still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." p.2658 #1030
"The church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect..." p. 268-29, #1031
B.P. The Bible teaches that God's gift is eternal life in the kingdom of heaven. This means that those who receive this free gift of life will not be put to any type of purification, since the blood of Christ cleanses all. Furthermore, this is an insult to the finished work of Christ since the necessity of purgatory implies that Christ’s death is an insufficient payment for sin.
“When he had received the drink, Jesus said, ‘It is finished.’ With that he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.” John 19:30
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom 5:18
"...by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Rom 5:18
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Rom 5:9
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom 8:1
“When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.” Heb. 9:11-12
“But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God...because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” Heb. 10:12,14
“... and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 Jn. 1:7
Additional Remarks:
The Catholics go on to make the following statement:
“If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received, the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory, before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit (i.e., may he be eternally condemned).” General Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, A.D. 1547, Canon 30.
Hence to say that God’s grace is sufficient for the salvation and the preservation of the believer is considered to be heretical in the eyes of the Catholic Church! (See no. 7)
Not only is there no Biblical support for purgatory, the fact of the matter is that this was incorporated by the Greek Church Fathers who in turn received it from Greek paganism. The following quotations on the origins of purgatory taken from Dictionary of the Christian Church, pp. 797, 814, will illustrate this point:
Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) Was the earliest Father to pray for the dead. He admitted there is no direct biblical basis for praying for the dead.
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) Speaks of sanctification of deathbed patients by purifying fire in the next life. In the early third century church there was much debate over the consequences of post-baptismal sin. A suggested solution was the idea of a purgatorial discipline after death. This concept was discussed at Alexandria, Egypt, at the time of Clement.
Augustine (A.D. 354-430) Taught purification through suffering in the afterlife. The concept of purgatory spread to the West that is, Italy and West Africa through the powerful influence of Augustine and Gregory the Great.
Gregory the Great (A.D. 540-604) Was bishop of Rome and therefore Pope from 590-604. He popularized and developed the doctrine of purgatory, aiding his spread to the West.
Plato (427-347 B.C.) spoke of Orphic teachers, “who flock to the rich man’s door, and try to persuade him that they have a power at their command, which they procure from heaven and which enables them by sacrifices and incantation...to amends for any crime committed by the individual himself or his ancestors... Their mysteries deliver us from the torments of the other world, while the neglect of them is punished by an awful doom.” Man and His Gods, p.127
The New Catholic Encyclopedia declares: “In the final analysis, the Catholic doctrine on purgatory is based on tradition, not Sacred Scripture.” (Vol. XI, p.1034)
also,
“The Church has relied on tradition to support a middle ground between heaven and hell.” (U.S. Catholic, March, 1981, p.7)
Reason #5- Statues - Con't... to next post.
Name me ONE of these priests who have been in the headlines lately who is a convert to the Catholic faith, can you?
As to the books. Too busy? Maybe. I don't want to read any more junk. I have two boxes of catholic books. In one is the "Confessions of an Anti-Apostle" or somesuch (the one where the nurse found the alleged documents after he was mortally injured in an automobile accident.
After reading that book twice, I decided it was probably spurious. There are no facts, footnotes, or anything to document. You don't want to know some of the other books I have read. Things like Pope Pius XXIII was indoctrinated into the Masons in Paris. Things like that. There are no proofs. There is nothing I loathe more than people who use unsubstantiated information to promote their agendas, no matter which wing they fly with.
I've may have read more books and newspapers and on the internet on these subjects than you have.
I've got a real beef with the church in blessing the charismatic movement and some of the trouble they have caused in the church. In order to get to the bottom of some of that, I had to resort to protestant books. It was the latter that convinced me that what we see as modern charismatism is heresy. You won't find that out reading catholic books unless you order them from a St. Pius X organization.
More later . . . maybe.
What exactly are you reading about the infiltration?
Which of these infiltrators are converts to the Catholic faith? Please name some names or groups.
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.