Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Sex Abuse Hearing Descends Into `Shut Up' Order and Charge of 'Abomination'
Courthouse News Service ^ | March 25, 2011 | Reuben Kramer

Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,341-1,356 next last
To: metmom; HossB86

“YOU show us where that appears in Scripture, or admit that the Catholic church is wrong.”

Why do you expect the Catholic Church to operate on some 16th Century invention called Sola Scriptura?


801 posted on 03/28/2011 9:38:31 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
How about I refer you to post 792 in which your statements, indicative of not reading or understanding the words of Jesus (which so often nestles comfortably in your posts), are at odds with the entire Gospel message.

You seem to have trouble believing what Jesus said...Are you a Gentile??? If so, Jesus says His Gospel is NOT for you...Don't argue with me...Take it up with Jesus...

I am not arguing with you. I merely repeat back to you the evidence that you give to us that you are not Christian. If you refer to the last chapters of both Mark and Matthew, all will be made clear to even pagan eyes.

You also seem to be disingenuous...It was Paul that gave you the knowledge of the Gospel of your Grace, not Jesus...It was Paul that revealed to you that you would be allowed into the church that Jesus planned on building...If Jesus had not revealed this information to Paul, you wouldn't have a church to go to...

Then why wrap yourself in a faux cover of Christianity? Why not just admit outright that you are Paulian and be done with it?

802 posted on 03/28/2011 9:42:51 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: metmom; HossB86

“ONE of the definitions involves the Catholic church.”

That’s debatable, but it doesn’t matter. Only one definition needs to involve the Catholic Church. Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to use a word, because it can also be used in a different sense?

I guess it’s wrong to say I boarded a plane at the airport, because another definition of plane is a flat surface.


803 posted on 03/28/2011 9:45:38 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I sure am glad I found the real truth and got out of that mess.


804 posted on 03/28/2011 9:58:04 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

Thanks for your non-contribution to this thread.


805 posted on 03/28/2011 10:00:41 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
Why do you expect the Catholic Church to operate on some 16th Century invention called Sola Scriptura?

Nobody said anything about SS except you. Expecting SOME Scriptural support for any doctrine is not unreasonable and is not SS.

Anyway, the Catholic church uses Scripture to back up the papacy, apostolic succession, transubstantiation, baptism, the priesthood, the keys of heaven and locking people out and all manner of other heresies.

Why not use Scripture to backup that Mary is a mediatrix as the Catholic church claims?

But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that there is none. It goes to show that the whole doctrine of her being a mediatrix is a fairy tale that the Catholic church teaches as truth.

What do you suppose that God will have to say about the Catholic church teaching as true things that are not?

806 posted on 03/28/2011 10:10:48 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; metmom; RnMomof7; OLD REGGIE; HossB86; Gamecock; presently no screen name; smvoice; ...
I get upset when they cut and pste facts to present a completely lopsided view of the crisis.

Thirty-seven priests in one city in one diocese.

Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves.

No one is preventing anyone from defending anything. Roman Catholics on this forum regularly defend pederast priests and the organization that covers for them by diminishing the assaults, by pointing fingers at everyone else, and by denying the victims' charges and intentions.

This thread is filled with those kinds of dissembling. There is no "lopsided view of this crisis" other than the view presented by Rome.

"Crisis" for whom?

807 posted on 03/28/2011 10:10:59 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

- Whom does the puppeteer represent?
- The choices are few, when you think about it, aren’t they?
______________________

Afraid to state in a straightforward manner what you meant, eh?


808 posted on 03/28/2011 10:13:08 AM PDT by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 793 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thirty-seven priests in one city in one diocese just in the last few decades.
809 posted on 03/28/2011 10:13:28 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; daniel1212; Gamecock; metmom; HossB86
lol. The tried and true tactics of someone with no rebuttal. Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.

Some of us are surprised to you see back, Cronos. It's not Easter yet. Didn't you say you were giving up FR for Lent?

The distinctions between Protestant denominations is an interesting topic, but has no bearing on the subject of this thread which is the pederasty that is rampant within the Roman Catholic priestcraft.

Why don't you post another thread and discuss your concerns there?

After you return from Lent.

810 posted on 03/28/2011 10:17:37 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Obviously, that's your religion's private interpretation and thus your tradition since it can't be found in the scriptures...

Mark 16 and Matthew 28 has been eliminated by the Great Church of Iscool (population 1), handed down from the Throne of the Great Sports Interpretation on NFL Sundays? And poor Paul is responsible for all this is he?

Let's recap what Jesus ACTUALLY said after He was Resurrected and was readying them for Pentecost (the starting signal, as it were):

Matthew 28: 18 11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Mark 16: . 14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. 20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.) 3

Luke tells us in Acts 1: 4 While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father 3 about which you have heard me speak; 5 for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit." 6 When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going 4 to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 5 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. 8 6 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

The only trash to be dealt with is the ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration. Jesus tells us with his own words that the Apostles are to evangelize the earth (note that Paul is not part of this instruction - where do we have Scripture quote Jesus telling Paul this? Answer: we have no Scripture quoting Jesus talking to Paul as He did the 12 and those He dealt with during His Incarnation, right?) and He will be with them always.

As Christians, we follow Jesus. Who did you say that you follow?

Ah, yes, you follow a cupie (sic) doll.

811 posted on 03/28/2011 10:18:13 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed, and are foremost adversaries against those who deny such, which are a result of holding men or an office as effectively infallible. And so they also contend against traditions of men which lack such warrant and conflation with Scripture, but are against it...

Holding Scriptures as supreme does not negate the teaching magisterium of the church, and in fact it materially establishes it, but it makes it subject to the Scriptures, rather than being the supreme authority on faith and morals, as possessing formulaic infallibility.

AMEN!

812 posted on 03/28/2011 10:21:45 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Nobody said anything about SS except you.”

You’re the one saying something is not true unless it’s in scripture. Hmmm, I think there’s a name for that doctrine...

“Why not use Scripture to backup that Mary is a mediatrix as the Catholic church claims?”

They don’t have to.

“But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that there is none.”

Never did that. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that you pull conclusions out of your you-know-what. Maybe I just don’t feel like looking up the Scriptural support, since its besides the point.

“her being a mediatrix is a fairy tale that the Catholic church teaches as truth.”

Incidentally, that’s how most people tend to feel about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their belief that Jesus and Michael Archangel are the same.

“What do you suppose that God will have to say about the Catholic church teaching as true things that are not?”

I guess He wouldn’t like it if it were possible.


813 posted on 03/28/2011 10:24:44 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
Why? Because such tactics all allow lies to stand. Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves.

What lies? That there was abuse in the Catholic church?

Sure you can defend the church, but since it's apparent that there IS a problem and there the church WAS remiss in how it dealt with the problem, why would you want to defend it?

Everyone knows that not every priest abuses. Everyone is aware that false accusations can and probably will be made (which is reprehensible because it does a great disservice to those actually abused).

Therefore, in light of that, it's possible that the problem is not as widespread as it appears.

OTOH, Catholics need to at least be realistic and realize that the problem could also be worse than it appears. Not everyone who was abused can or will report it. Some likely have died, and some probably want to move on and forget about it.

But there is no reasonable, credible defense of the priests and the hierarchy which protected them. No excuse cuts it and no amount of blameshifting works either.

All that does is leave the distinct impression that Catholics are out of touch with reality on the issue and want to believe so badly that the problem isn't what it appears that they deny the obvious, that it indeed could be worse.

Nobody wants to feel betrayed by an organization they trust, but sadly that has happened. The Catholic church has failed the victims, has failed their families, and has failed the rest of its members in about the worst possible way.

Should we expect any church to be exempt from sin by it's members and clergy? Not realistically.

Should they be exempt from addressing it properly? NEVER.

814 posted on 03/28/2011 10:25:05 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
I have been booted off more than one thread and I am a kind, sweet, old man.

Is that before or after you get into the slivovitz?

815 posted on 03/28/2011 10:26:23 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; metmom; count-your-change
The clear implication of what the judge said (as she waved the letter around) is that the lead defense counsel is a sex criminal.

Wow. That is just about the most insane comment I've read in a long time on this forum. Wow.

Please show us where the judge said or implied ANYTHING like that.

She simply said the defense attorney attended the same seminary at the same time where and when the alleged sex abuse was taking place, and therefore he might have information about the case that would cause him to be called as a witness.

Witness.

In English, once again...

WITNESS.

816 posted on 03/28/2011 10:27:19 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

LOL


817 posted on 03/28/2011 10:29:36 AM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies]

To: HossB86; aruanan; metmom; Gamecock; RnMomof7; Quix
So... when you believe or quote a passage of scripture... let’s say John 3:16, then it’s only your opinion that Christ said that if we believe in Him we will have everlasting life? That is opinion?

If God says it, it IS. No opinion about it at all. When God tells us we are to have no other gods before Him, is it a suggestion, or a command? Doesn’t that rate as fact?

If Christ teaches us to pray to the Father, does that mean it’s an opinion only?

Nice, but again, fail.

Excellent response to aruanan, who failed to make any salient point other than to question the confidence Christians have been given in the veracity of the word of God.

818 posted on 03/28/2011 10:35:20 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: lastchance
Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves. Even when other take what we write and quote it out of context so it appears to support their arguments we are forbidden from calling them to task.

You wrote the 'quote out of context' in your recent post to me. Is that in reference to me? If so, show me what I took out of context. You whine about it but you never showed me WHAT was out of context. You accuse but don't back it up. So what's this about not allowed to defend yourself? Is it that you CAN'T as apposed to not allowed?
819 posted on 03/28/2011 10:36:31 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: esquirette
Afraid to state in a straightforward manner what you meant, eh?,/I>

Does this mean that you either afraid that it refers to you, or alternatively, does not?

820 posted on 03/28/2011 10:37:46 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 1,341-1,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson