| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
Amen. In a nutshell.
There must be some FRoman Catholics (I like your shorthand) who clearly denounce the sins of their priests and who take care to protect their children from them, knowing for a fact who is the victim and who is the abuser.
If so, they don't seem to post on any of these threads.
And the casual lurker, would s/he think that the protestants NEVER had any problem with child sexual abuse?
Luther has two types of grievances; church ethics and church dogma. The ethical complaints have long ago been resolved. Many believe that if he were alive today Luther would be a devout Catholic, if the Church would have him and his extreme antisemitism.
Having said that, why do so many of you anti-Catholics still rail against the 16th century Church?
Show me ONE POST (Alex Murphy, here's your big chance!) where any anti-Catholic FReeper ever expressed ANY trust in the Catholic Church.
***And the casual lurker, would s/he think that the protestants NEVER had any problem with child sexual abuse?***
Not from this Prod. All of them should be put in jail. And I certainly don’t accuse Catholics of stirring the pot.
Post all the articles on pastoral abuse you want. I will condemn those who are guilty with you. But I won’t follow the M.O. of the vast majority of FRoman Catholics and accuse you of “Protestant Bashing.”
After these years spent on the FR RF and reading all the different points of view, it becomes more clear than ever that the Reformation was a Scriptural restatement of the direct and personal purpose, work and truth of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christ's flock.
All of which Rome tried and tries to deny, inserting the papacy between the Triune God and the believer.
Bravo Sierra!
Don't try to peddle that to people who have actually studied the history of Europe. This isn't your Sunday school or bible study tea group made up of frustrated old house fraus and high school graduates. Calvin was all about a shadow Church government that held total control and power over the civil authorities.
Besides, even IF Calvin had articulated that concept he would not have been the first by a loooooooong shot.
Indeed, there is no doubt that Luther was a bigot and a failed Catholic.
There you go again, teleporting Luther's biases against Jews into the present, but leaving the overwhelmingly more prevalent Catholic biases against Jews in the 16th century, ... and the 17th and the 18th and the 19th, in the past where they belong. The Catholic Isabella II finally drew the Spanish Inquisition to a close in 1834. Oh, that's right, you don't like the information I posted, so you disparage the source, yet agree via a circuituous route more favorable to your church.
In case you haven't noticed, the 16th century was the era in which the Reformation arose. Many devout and brave men, and women and children, perished over the centuries to bring the truth of the Word to the present day, and quite a few of them perished at the hands of their own, errant church. It's a seminal moment in Christian history, whether you're in agreement with what I've said, or whether you're casting about for any old libel to cast these Reformers and martyrs into as bad a light as possible for partisan reasons.
Thank God! A shame modern internet Catholics retain the bigotry.
The Apostles used sleight of hand? Good luck with that charge.
John Calvin turned Geneva into a dictatorial theocracy, with himself as the tyrant. Your posting is completely at odds with the facts.
The actions of mere men can undermine the Reformed God? You have a very weak and incomplete God. You may wish to try the Christian God instead. We can help point you in the right direction.
There, fixed it for you.
There isn't one. Paul does not subscribe to the Nicene Trinitarian view of Christianity. Neither do the Synoptic Gospels, by the way. It is in John that we find some evidence of the Triune God, with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit co equal, co existing, and co eternal members of One God. Paul definitely is not Trinitarian.
Were your reverence of Luther limited to cultural issues I would tend to agree with you, but the truth is a universal constant and Luther was, is, and will always be a bigot. He did not speak for Christ or the Holy Spirit.
"The Catholic Isabella II finally drew the Spanish Inquisition to a close in 1834."
At least you have indirectly admitted that the Inquisition was a Spanish governmental pogrom and not one of the Catholic Church anymore than the Protestant Inquisitions that occurred concurrently across Northern Europe. Can you now differentiate between sins by those who profess to be Catholic and the sins of the Catholic Church?
That makes about as much sense as saying the apostle Paul was an unsophisticated, confused, insane, diabetic goofball loony who wasn't very tightly wrapped following his Damascus Road conversion.
"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned..."
-- The Apostle Paul, Galatians 2:11 [ESB]
Another keeper of a statement, folks. Make a note of it.
Well, did St. Paul believe that Christ was the son of Mary and God?
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.