Posted on 05/03/2011 12:17:26 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
I am a Christian. You are a follower of the Pope, there is quite a distinction.
Typical anti love of neighbor response about someone like B-Chan who was going through suffering.
I will pray for you Adoration tomorrow to have a heart of compassion
“Teens. If you call teens “children” then I guess so. Have you ever heard of ephebephilia?
You can hammer that all day long if you want. I cannot tell everything I know, but I can say there are teens who don’t care who they have sex with, who exploit sick, perverted adults for power, money, and drugs, just as they exploit others younger than they are for power and sex.
You likely have no familiarity with the ugly homosexual subculture. I have a fair amount of experience with these people as a nurse on psych and as AIDS patients. And talk to some people in law enforcement to get a fuller picture.
I am a Catholic parent, so was my husband. If any Church authority figure had EVER harmed one of my children, we’d be in jail for murder, not behind closed doors with a lawyer angling for his fee and a big payout. I absolutely do not trust most of the so-called victims.”
Writing there are teenagers who have exploited sickos is not blaming child victims of sexual abuse. Does that apply to victims of clergy abuse? I do not believe so at all. But there is a subculture where unfortunatly it does happen. Usually on the streets as a survival technique.
It is deception to pick what suits your views and to leave out the full post.
“You are willfully ignoring that these were not CHILD victims, they were teens. You evidently did not read my post.
I have never blamed a raped child for ANYTHING. But teens, every day, commit crimes up to and including murder, in order to gain money, drugs, power, sexual gratifications, etc. Are you one of those who call the Columbine murderers “children”?
Yet, teens do exploit adults to get what they want. Exploiting gay men for money, power, drugs, and sexual satisfaction is a common occurance. I’m not blaming VICTIMS, I’m blaming the deviant homosexual subculture.”
Such a practice would be called lying anywhere else.
If your sect is Christian. Christianity is doomed.
Very good. What we have today is definitely not Christian in any manner whatsoever.
And let's not forget, this isn't a homosexual issue. Plenty of girls were molested by Priests too.
Gamecock,
I was careful in my reply to state I did not think the example Judith Ann gave was the case in clergy sex abuse cases. I don’t believe those victims were street wise teenagers who exploit adults in order to survive.
If my mother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
You are a follower of the Pope, there is quite a distinction.
Matthew 16 tells us of the stewardship of Peter:
13 8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. 21 16 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he 17 must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised. 22 18 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you." 23 He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." 24 19 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, 20 take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 21 26 What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life? 27 22 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct.
All Christians will be Judged according to their conduct - including their conduct on FR.
Judith Anne - Teens. If you call teens “children” then I guess so. Have you ever heard of ephebephilia?
You can hammer that all day long if you want. I cannot tell everything I know, but I can say there are teens who don’t care who they have sex with, who exploit sick, perverted adults for power, money, and drugs, just as they exploit others younger than they are for power and sex.
You likely have no familiarity with the ugly homosexual subculture. I have a fair amount of experience with these people as a nurse on psych and as AIDS patients. And talk to some people in law enforcement to get a fuller picture.
Judith Anne - Please. Ephebophiles. TEENS. It’s not a foolish argument, it’s reality. If you’re going to bash the Church, do so from a position of REALITY. In case you’ve forgotten, we send CHILDREN (young adults) into war.
A definition: (From wikipedia, but it’s accurate)
Because most late adolescents have physical characteristics near (or in other cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults of all sexual orientations.[6] The term ephebophilia is used only to describe the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction. Such a distinct preference for individuals in mid or late adolescence is not generally regarded by psychologists as a pathology when it does not interfere with other major areas of one’s life. Ephebophilia is not listed by name as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), or the ICD-10, nor is it listed as a paraphilia. This is as opposed to pedophilia, which is categorized as a specific disorder in those systems with its own diagnostic criteria. However, ephebophilia can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder if it results in dysfunction or exploitative behavior, either under the DSM specification 309.2, “Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified”, or under the ICD-10 F65.8 “Other disorders of sexual preference”.[14][15]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2495846/posts?page=62#62
It appears that Judith Anne, a Psych RN, was trying to have an intellectual discussion but...whoosh, it went right over the empty craniums.
And you posted the picture for...?
Since it isn't, Christianity will continue just as our Lord promised us.
Since you have habit of cherry picking let me re post what I wrote in regards to clergy who abused teens.
“Writing there are teenagers who have exploited sickos is not blaming child victims of sexual abuse. Does that apply to victims of clergy abuse? I do not believe so at all.”
I would view the case of a 13 year old altar boy who had trusted a priest as friend and mentor only to be preyed upon and abused by that priest quite differently than a 16 year old street kid who engaged in homosexual behavior in order to score drugs. The former is cleary a victim of a predator. The latter the roles of prey and predator often cross and are hard to distinguish.
I think you are confusing Judith Ann’s post with my reply. I did not mention family she did.
Gamecock named one Catholic who believes that the victims of abuse were (in most cases) the real perpetraitors of abuse. Why not put it into a larger context? Those of us on that thread learned from that same Catholic that:
a) (Most) Catholic priests were engaging in completely legal sex actsIf that's not excusing the priests for their crimes, I don't know what is.
b) (Most of) the priests' sexual conquests were at an age of legal consent, according to Catholic apologists, meaning that
c) (Most of) the priests were therefore engaging in consensual sex acts
, but that d) (Some of) the priests were actually seduced by teenage boys into engaging in these legal, consensual sex acts
e) A priest who finds teenage minors sexually attractive (ephebophilia) is harboring neither a pathological nor a mental disorder.
f) There's a legal difference between molestation and rape, which means that molesting a 13 year old is better than raping a 13 year old..
g) There's at least as much abuse in Presbyterian churches as there has been in Catholic ones [which can't be very much, given points a - f]
h) There's 3-4 times as much abuse by clergy in Protestant denominations [which can't be very much, given points a - g]
i) Silence in regards to abuses by clergy shows a lack of care and concern for the victims. Speaking out in regards to abuses by clergy is exploiting the victims in order to harm others. [which condemns those who brought up points g and h, above]
Where is the Outrage? (protestant pedophiles)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2709296/posts
Gamecock - “I’m outraged.
They should have their private parts cut off, a millstone tied around their necks and tossed into the ocean.”
And you’re just learning about Protestant pedophilia today?
Perhaps we should post some more threads on Protestant child abuses as it appears that few of you are aware of them. And even more importantly that it hasn’t stopped. The mainline Protestant Churches (and other Institutions) are following the excellent Catholic program that was implemented 10 years ago - perhaps it would help the decentralized Churches? What do you think it will take to stop your Pastors from committing such foul acts?
You need to ping Judith Ann since you are maligning her by writing that her posts say something completly different from what they actually said.
Yes I bothered to read every post you linked to. None of them in anyway resembled what you claimed.
Shame on you.
***And you’re just learning about Protestant pedophilia today?***
No.
I have condemned it before. I’ve posted articles of Prod minsters caught red handed. I don’t hide behind nuances and cast false blame like the FR Papists.
You are a voice of reason. I would go further and say that if, quite simply, everybody who holds any political office today (or at any other time) is told that he holds that office as his property as long as he wants it, and can bequeath it to his child -- our lives as private citizens will improve dramatically, this country will prosper in peace, the size fo government will be reduced over time drastically, and generally much if not all of the conservative agenda will be implemented in due course. That is because property is preserved and increased when it has an owner, and in a democracy the national infrastructure has no owner, only renters.
I don't think any American Monarchist (I am one) considers monarchy a possibility for America presently. I think that an aristocratic system with a monarch balancing and limiting the excesses of the nobility is a natural development of any free society; I think that a healthy society does have a dominant religion and merely tolerates other religions. I also think that Protestantism is the dominant American religion at least for the time being.
The idea that one can write a constitution and then somehow implement it, like a computer program, is profoundly un-monarchic, and outright silly. A monarchy is an organic product, -- it is, in fact a form of a family. It develops over time; it may even have a consitution at some point of maturity; but to write a monarchic constitutions makes about as much sense as writing a future biography of a baby.
Good. Then you won’t mind if I help you out a little every now and again?
I don't think any American Monarchist (I am one) considers monarchy a possibility for America presently. I think that an aristocratic system with a monarch balancing and limiting the excesses of the nobility is a natural development of any free society; I think that a healthy society does have a dominant religion and merely tolerates other religions. I also think that Protestantism is the dominant American religion at least for the time being.
Does "not a possibility for America presently" mean that Catholics should be trying improve the possibility for it in America, at least in the future?
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.