Mark Aspam;1319793 wrote: 1. Well, I read the two most recent links you provided, and I did not see anything there that supported your assertion that, in at least one case, the parents took their accusation to the Church officials, who investigated, found the accusation to be true, and then did nothing. There has to be more to the story. If you can provide a link to this specific case, please do so, and I will certainly study it. You are the one who made the claim, you should be able to provide substantiation or at least admit that you have none.
2. I live in Germany part of the year and when I'm there I depend on the BBC for news in English. They have misstated RCC doctrine rather badly in several of their reports. Whether that is intentional or due to the ignorance of their news writers I'm not sure, I suspect the latter. In a couple of instances I even complained in writing and never received a reply.
How about some german cases then?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 97,00.html
In an unprecedented admission of guilt, the Catholic Church in the German city of Hanover responded on Sunday to the current abuse scandal. "The entire institution is guilty because it fostered a 'please don't talk about it' mentality," the regional Catholic deacon, Provost Martin Tenge, said during Sunday services at the Hanover Basilica. "If a Catholic priest, who is representing an institution with such high moral notions, commits sexual abuse, then this will lead to an irrepairable breach." "We must offer our deepest apologies to the victims," he said.
But upon closer inspection, even these guidelines are pervaded by the Church's way of thinking, as affirmed by the Holy See in 1962 under Pope John XXIII and once again in 2001. According to those guidelines, which remain in force today, potential cases of abuse must be reported to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The guidelines also forbid bishops worldwide from taking any steps beyond an initial investigation of accusations without direct instructions from Rome. The entire procedure is subject to "pontifical secrecy," the second-highest level of secrecy within the Holy See. Anyone who violates this code of secrecy without papal permission can be punished.
Meanwhile in Berlin, Cardinal Georg Sterzinsky has been aware of allegations against a priest in the Holy Cross parish since July 2009. Even though this case could soon pass the statute of limitations -- the accusations relate to incidents that allegedly occurred in 2001 -- an internal investigation by an "independent" Berlin church commission has dragged on. An investigation, albeit secret, was also initiated at the Vatican. It was left up to the victim, however, to report the abuse allegations to the police.
Surely you of all people can understand the kind of social pressure that will keep the victims quiet until they are adult. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest. Whose word would you take first? From the tenor of your posts it would appear you would be more inclined to listen to the priest.
But there are plenty of cases where people did speak out if you care to look.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 093935.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 093936.ece
Signature on letter implicates Pope in abuse cover-up
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger resisted pleas from a Californian diocese to defrock a priest with a record of molesting children, putting “the good of the universal Churchâ€, above other considerations, according to the 1985 letter.
The correspondence, obtained by the Associated Press, undermines the repeated insistence from the Holy See that Benedict XVI has had no personal involvement in covering up the sins of paedophiles.
Also have a read of the irish report if you like. The archbishop of ireland has openly admitted he took part in a cover up and has asked for forgiveness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... _abuse.pdf
If it was just one or two isolated cases no one would be surprised - after all child abuse is not the preserve of the catholic church.
I live in Germany part of the year and when I'm there I depend on the BBC for news in English. They have misstated RCC doctrine rather badly in several of their reports. Whether that is intentional or due to the ignorance of their news writers I'm not sure, I suspect the latter. In a couple of instances I even complained in writing and never received a reply.
The UK is a largely secular country so far as it's people are concerned. But the established church is protestant so the bbc getting RCC doctrine wrong wouldn't surprise me. It's not a major issue though.
Arrest the pope?
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319793 wrote: 1. Well, I read the two most recent links you provided, and I did not see anything there that supported your assertion that, in at least one case, the parents took their accusation to the Church officials, who investigated, found the accusation to be true, and then did nothing.
Jesus Christ, it was in both articles. Do you need it pointed out?
The five-volume study concluded that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders' paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy".
Jesus Christ, it was in both articles. Do you need it pointed out?
The five-volume study concluded that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders' paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy".
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319801 wrote: Surely you of all people can understand the kind of social pressure that will keep the victims quiet until they are adult. It boils down to the word of a child against that of a priest. Whose word would you take first? From the tenor of your posts it would appear you would be more inclined to listen to the priest. This, I think, is our greatest point of disagreement, because firstly, you say, "...you of all people can understand.." and I can't understand that at all. Secondly, you assert that "from the tenor of [my] posts would be more inclined to believe the priest.", and I don't see anything I've posted here that would suggest that.
In such a situation, it seems to me that a reasonable person would assess the motivation to lie. In the case of the child, no discernable motivation. For the accused, every motivation if he is guilty. I'm sure we agree that that dichotomy would not be sufficient for a conviction, but at least it's a start.
And as I reminded you earlier, the child would not be facing either a civil or ecclesiastical hearing alone, he would be represented by a competant lawyer who was convinced of his veracity.
The priest, on the other hand, would probably be represented by counsel who knew that he was guilty and was trying to provide him with the best defense possible under the circumstances.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
Once again, gmc, and this is why I keep saying that the thread has worn itself out, you seem to be under the impression that Catholics are somehow in awe of their clergy. That is not the case at all. We respect them but at the same time hold them to very high standards of morality and demeanor. In previous times, and I'm not sure if this is still true, a priest and a nun from the same parish were not even allowed to ride in a car together, not because they couldn't be trusted but because it might not look right.
Didn't I already say that I want every abusive priest punished to the fullest extent of the law and every falsely accused priest completely exonerated? I think that nearly all Catholics want that. Including Catholic priests. Probably ESPECIALLY Catholic preists.
That there are some Catholics who are in denial I do not doubt, they are probably in denial over other, non-Chruch-related issues as well. That would be more personality-related than Church-related.
In such a situation, it seems to me that a reasonable person would assess the motivation to lie. In the case of the child, no discernable motivation. For the accused, every motivation if he is guilty. I'm sure we agree that that dichotomy would not be sufficient for a conviction, but at least it's a start.
And as I reminded you earlier, the child would not be facing either a civil or ecclesiastical hearing alone, he would be represented by a competant lawyer who was convinced of his veracity.
The priest, on the other hand, would probably be represented by counsel who knew that he was guilty and was trying to provide him with the best defense possible under the circumstances.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
Once again, gmc, and this is why I keep saying that the thread has worn itself out, you seem to be under the impression that Catholics are somehow in awe of their clergy. That is not the case at all. We respect them but at the same time hold them to very high standards of morality and demeanor. In previous times, and I'm not sure if this is still true, a priest and a nun from the same parish were not even allowed to ride in a car together, not because they couldn't be trusted but because it might not look right.
Didn't I already say that I want every abusive priest punished to the fullest extent of the law and every falsely accused priest completely exonerated? I think that nearly all Catholics want that. Including Catholic priests. Probably ESPECIALLY Catholic preists.
That there are some Catholics who are in denial I do not doubt, they are probably in denial over other, non-Chruch-related issues as well. That would be more personality-related than Church-related.
Arrest the pope?
Posted by mark Apsam
In such a situation, it seems to me that a reasonable person would assess the motivation to lie. In the case of the child, no discernible motivation. For the accused, every motivation if he is guilty. I'm sure we agree that that dichotomy would not be sufficient for a conviction, but at least it's a start.
Perhaps now people will listen when a child talks. Sadly in past decades that quite simply was not the case child abuse was always something people like to pretend never happened and couldn't talk about especially when it was such a respected figure in the community and we are talking about children remember who were made to feel guilty for what happened to them. When you are told by a figure whose authority your parents respect to keep quiet about something it is hard to speak out, even more so when it is a priest and you want to be a good boy/girl and go to heaven. These are children remember and paedophiles pick their victims very carefully and keep away from the stroppy ones that would tell.
The cases are not just sexual abuse but beatings and humiliations inflicted as punishment for minor infractions, abuse of power to terrorise the helpless. Look at the irish report, it's not just feeling up the children in confession. Even now there are those who think it acceptable to use corporal punishment on children if they misbehave.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
It takes a great deal of courage to speak out. Not all received monetary compensation in any case but in our society that is how organisations are punished when imprisonment is not possible. That you would assume someone would claim to have been abused as a child just as a way to make money says a great deal about your view of human nature.
Once again, gmc, and this is why I keep saying that the thread has worn itself out, you seem to be under the impression that Catholics are somehow in awe of their clergy.
I'm not. It would not be reasonable given that is catholics making these complaints not protestants. But it surprises me that you cannot understand why in the society of twenty or thirty years ago many did not speak out. For a child to stand in front of an authority figure they have been taught to revere and not be intimidated takes some doing, especially if you have been convinced you can go to hell for doing wrong. It's hard enough for an adult.
Didn't I already say that I want every abusive priest punished to the fullest extent of the law and every falsely accused priest completely exonerated? I think that nearly all Catholics want that. Including Catholic priests. Probably ESPECIALLY Catholic preists.
Yet you seem to start out from the viewpoint that the claims are spurious and designed to attack the church and not countenance the possibility there is something to the abuse claims.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
In such a situation, it seems to me that a reasonable person would assess the motivation to lie. In the case of the child, no discernible motivation. For the accused, every motivation if he is guilty. I'm sure we agree that that dichotomy would not be sufficient for a conviction, but at least it's a start.
Perhaps now people will listen when a child talks. Sadly in past decades that quite simply was not the case child abuse was always something people like to pretend never happened and couldn't talk about especially when it was such a respected figure in the community and we are talking about children remember who were made to feel guilty for what happened to them. When you are told by a figure whose authority your parents respect to keep quiet about something it is hard to speak out, even more so when it is a priest and you want to be a good boy/girl and go to heaven. These are children remember and paedophiles pick their victims very carefully and keep away from the stroppy ones that would tell.
The cases are not just sexual abuse but beatings and humiliations inflicted as punishment for minor infractions, abuse of power to terrorise the helpless. Look at the irish report, it's not just feeling up the children in confession. Even now there are those who think it acceptable to use corporal punishment on children if they misbehave.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
It takes a great deal of courage to speak out. Not all received monetary compensation in any case but in our society that is how organisations are punished when imprisonment is not possible. That you would assume someone would claim to have been abused as a child just as a way to make money says a great deal about your view of human nature.
Once again, gmc, and this is why I keep saying that the thread has worn itself out, you seem to be under the impression that Catholics are somehow in awe of their clergy.
I'm not. It would not be reasonable given that is catholics making these complaints not protestants. But it surprises me that you cannot understand why in the society of twenty or thirty years ago many did not speak out. For a child to stand in front of an authority figure they have been taught to revere and not be intimidated takes some doing, especially if you have been convinced you can go to hell for doing wrong. It's hard enough for an adult.
Didn't I already say that I want every abusive priest punished to the fullest extent of the law and every falsely accused priest completely exonerated? I think that nearly all Catholics want that. Including Catholic priests. Probably ESPECIALLY Catholic preists.
Yet you seem to start out from the viewpoint that the claims are spurious and designed to attack the church and not countenance the possibility there is something to the abuse claims.
Now, in the case of, say, a 45-yerar-old man who all of a sudden, having read of payoffs and payouts, decides that he was molested as a child, well, that is a different thing entirely. His motivation would be highly suspect.
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319814 wrote: Posted by mark Apsam
Perhaps now people will listen when a child talks. Sadly in past decades that quite simply was not the case child abuse was always something people like to pretend never happened and couldn't talk about especially when it was such a respected figure in the community and we are talking about children remember who were made to feel guilty for what happened to them. When you are told by a figure whose authority your parents respect to keep quiet about something it is hard to speak out, even more so when it is a priest and you want to be a good boy/girl and go to heaven. These are children remember and paedophiles pick their victims very carefully and keep away from the stroppy ones that would tell.
The cases are not just sexual abuse but beatings and humiliations inflicted as punishment for minor infractions, abuse of power to terrorise the helpless. Look at the irish report, it's not just feeling up the children in confession. Even now there are those who think it acceptable to use corporal punishment on children if they misbehave.
It takes a great deal of courage to speak out. Not all received monetary compensation in any case but in our society that is how organisations are punished when imprisonment is not possible. That you would assume someone would claim to have been abused as a child just as a way to make money says a great deal about your view of human nature.
I'm not. It would not be reasonable given that is catholics making these complaints not protestants. But it surprises me that you cannot understand why in the society of twenty or thirty years ago many did not speak out. For a child to stand in front of an authority figure they have been taught to revere and not be intimidated takes some doing, especially if you have been convinced you can go to hell for doing wrong. It's hard enough for an adult.
Yet you seem to start out from the viewpoint that the claims are spurious and designed to attack the church and not countenance the possibility there is something to the abuse claims.Well, g, I don't have much to add, I used to think, based on your posts elsewhere, that you were one of the more intellligent and pragmatic posters here, I gotta say, my faith has been shaken by your rantings on this particular thread. I'll just reply briefly to a couple of your statements, after which I see no point in MY continuing here, you and the troll are, of course, free to do so.
1. Abused children made to feel guilty for what happened to them? What nonsense.
2. I was an altar boy. If any such thing had happened to me, I know exactly what my parents would have done. We would have been on our way to the family attorney's office immediately. My parents might well have respected the priest up to that time, on the assumption that he was doing his job and living his life in accord with his priestly vows. That respect would have vanished immediately.
3. I won't even get started on corporal punishment of children. It used to be endemic, most people regard it much differently now, though sadly some do not.
4. No Catholic child was ever threatened with damnation for telling the truth. Even if s/he is not believed, the child knows what really happened and knows that God knows also. The abuser is the one who should be considering the condition of his soul. And once again you paint the picture of a child, as you put it, standing in front of an authority figure and being intimidated. That would not happen. S/he would be represented in any hearing by a tough lawyer who would hardly be intimidated.
5. A 45-year-old guy suddenly remembering that he had been abused by a priest? Yeah, I would view his claims as spurious, under our system of justice, I have no choice. The accused is presumed to be innocent until convicted, which he cannot be due to the statute of limitations. The accuser knows what really happened, so does the priest. It's none of my business nor yours. Now, if the accuser and the priest agree to polygraph exams, and the accuser passes and the priest fails, then I'll consider the possibility that the accusation might be truthful.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
Perhaps now people will listen when a child talks. Sadly in past decades that quite simply was not the case child abuse was always something people like to pretend never happened and couldn't talk about especially when it was such a respected figure in the community and we are talking about children remember who were made to feel guilty for what happened to them. When you are told by a figure whose authority your parents respect to keep quiet about something it is hard to speak out, even more so when it is a priest and you want to be a good boy/girl and go to heaven. These are children remember and paedophiles pick their victims very carefully and keep away from the stroppy ones that would tell.
The cases are not just sexual abuse but beatings and humiliations inflicted as punishment for minor infractions, abuse of power to terrorise the helpless. Look at the irish report, it's not just feeling up the children in confession. Even now there are those who think it acceptable to use corporal punishment on children if they misbehave.
It takes a great deal of courage to speak out. Not all received monetary compensation in any case but in our society that is how organisations are punished when imprisonment is not possible. That you would assume someone would claim to have been abused as a child just as a way to make money says a great deal about your view of human nature.
I'm not. It would not be reasonable given that is catholics making these complaints not protestants. But it surprises me that you cannot understand why in the society of twenty or thirty years ago many did not speak out. For a child to stand in front of an authority figure they have been taught to revere and not be intimidated takes some doing, especially if you have been convinced you can go to hell for doing wrong. It's hard enough for an adult.
Yet you seem to start out from the viewpoint that the claims are spurious and designed to attack the church and not countenance the possibility there is something to the abuse claims.Well, g, I don't have much to add, I used to think, based on your posts elsewhere, that you were one of the more intellligent and pragmatic posters here, I gotta say, my faith has been shaken by your rantings on this particular thread. I'll just reply briefly to a couple of your statements, after which I see no point in MY continuing here, you and the troll are, of course, free to do so.
1. Abused children made to feel guilty for what happened to them? What nonsense.
2. I was an altar boy. If any such thing had happened to me, I know exactly what my parents would have done. We would have been on our way to the family attorney's office immediately. My parents might well have respected the priest up to that time, on the assumption that he was doing his job and living his life in accord with his priestly vows. That respect would have vanished immediately.
3. I won't even get started on corporal punishment of children. It used to be endemic, most people regard it much differently now, though sadly some do not.
4. No Catholic child was ever threatened with damnation for telling the truth. Even if s/he is not believed, the child knows what really happened and knows that God knows also. The abuser is the one who should be considering the condition of his soul. And once again you paint the picture of a child, as you put it, standing in front of an authority figure and being intimidated. That would not happen. S/he would be represented in any hearing by a tough lawyer who would hardly be intimidated.
5. A 45-year-old guy suddenly remembering that he had been abused by a priest? Yeah, I would view his claims as spurious, under our system of justice, I have no choice. The accused is presumed to be innocent until convicted, which he cannot be due to the statute of limitations. The accuser knows what really happened, so does the priest. It's none of my business nor yours. Now, if the accuser and the priest agree to polygraph exams, and the accuser passes and the priest fails, then I'll consider the possibility that the accusation might be truthful.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319855 wrote: Well, g, I don't have much to add, I used to think, based on your posts elsewhere, that you were one of the more intellligent and pragmatic posters here, I gotta say, my faith has been shaken by your rantings on this particular thread. I'll just reply briefly to a couple of your statements, after which I see no point in MY continuing here, you and the troll are, of course, free to do so.
1. Abused children made to feel guilty for what happened to them? What nonsense.
2. I was an altar boy. If any such thing had happened to me, I know exactly what my parents would have done. We would have been on our way to the family attorney's office immediately. My parents might well have respected the priest up to that time, on the assumption that he was doing his job and living his life in accord with his priestly vows. That respect would have vanished immediately.
3. I won't even get started on corporal punishment of children. It used to be endemic, most people regard it much differently now, though sadly some do not.
4. No Catholic child was ever threatened with damnation for telling the truth. Even if s/he is not believed, the child knows what really happened and knows that God knows also. The abuser is the one who should be considering the condition of his soul. And once again you paint the picture of a child, as you put it, standing in front of an authority figure and being intimidated. That would not happen. S/he would be represented in any hearing by a tough lawyer who would hardly be intimidated.
5. A 45-year-old guy suddenly remembering that he had been abused by a priest? Yeah, I would view his claims as spurious, under our system of justice, I have no choice. The accused is presumed to be innocent until convicted, which he cannot be due to the statute of limitations. The accuser knows what really happened, so does the priest. It's none of my business nor yours. Now, if the accuser and the priest agree to polygraph exams, and the accuser passes and the priest fails, then I'll consider the possibility that the accusation might be truthful.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
I'm not ranting just trying to get you to put yourself in anothers shoes.
1. Do some reading up on how abused children view themselves. Many children can't think things through and realise they are not at fault.
2. It didn't happen tp you and perhaps it was because any potential abuser would realise you were not a suitable victim. I've never been abused either but I don't assume those who claim to have been are liars.
3. read the irish report, the abuse was also excessive use of force to punish.
4. Why would you assume everybody would take that course of action. Not everybody can afford to go to a lawyer - you are talking in some cases about children in care homes what chance would they have had to get a lawyer? Many were helpless and would put their trust in the church authorities - and get let down. Many parents would not want to be seen as causing problems in the community and want to let the church sort it out - and they were let down.
5. They're not suddenly remembering they are finding the courage to speak out about something that happened to them as children. A lot of them would not have reaised they were not the only ones involved and it's only when other start to speak they realise they are not alone.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
I think you highlight the problem the catholic church has. There are innumarable cases of child abuse within the catholic church carried out by priests and nuns on the helpless. many of which have been proven as true. You just don't want to look objectively at what has happened and prefer to condemn those making the claims - you couldn't even be bothered looking at the links and when you did you ignore the evidence as spurious.
Not being a catholic I don't really care what happens to the catholic church. But I feel sorry for those who feel betrayed and let down and puzzled by those who think the whole issue is merely designed to attack the church. It wasn't non catholics who started all this it was the church's own doing and it's own members making the running. Why do you say you want all, abusive preists punished to the full extent of the law but at the same time so ready to dismiss charges against them as fraudulent? You show a singular lack of compassion for the vistims IMO.
1. Abused children made to feel guilty for what happened to them? What nonsense.
2. I was an altar boy. If any such thing had happened to me, I know exactly what my parents would have done. We would have been on our way to the family attorney's office immediately. My parents might well have respected the priest up to that time, on the assumption that he was doing his job and living his life in accord with his priestly vows. That respect would have vanished immediately.
3. I won't even get started on corporal punishment of children. It used to be endemic, most people regard it much differently now, though sadly some do not.
4. No Catholic child was ever threatened with damnation for telling the truth. Even if s/he is not believed, the child knows what really happened and knows that God knows also. The abuser is the one who should be considering the condition of his soul. And once again you paint the picture of a child, as you put it, standing in front of an authority figure and being intimidated. That would not happen. S/he would be represented in any hearing by a tough lawyer who would hardly be intimidated.
5. A 45-year-old guy suddenly remembering that he had been abused by a priest? Yeah, I would view his claims as spurious, under our system of justice, I have no choice. The accused is presumed to be innocent until convicted, which he cannot be due to the statute of limitations. The accuser knows what really happened, so does the priest. It's none of my business nor yours. Now, if the accuser and the priest agree to polygraph exams, and the accuser passes and the priest fails, then I'll consider the possibility that the accusation might be truthful.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
I'm not ranting just trying to get you to put yourself in anothers shoes.
1. Do some reading up on how abused children view themselves. Many children can't think things through and realise they are not at fault.
2. It didn't happen tp you and perhaps it was because any potential abuser would realise you were not a suitable victim. I've never been abused either but I don't assume those who claim to have been are liars.
3. read the irish report, the abuse was also excessive use of force to punish.
4. Why would you assume everybody would take that course of action. Not everybody can afford to go to a lawyer - you are talking in some cases about children in care homes what chance would they have had to get a lawyer? Many were helpless and would put their trust in the church authorities - and get let down. Many parents would not want to be seen as causing problems in the community and want to let the church sort it out - and they were let down.
5. They're not suddenly remembering they are finding the courage to speak out about something that happened to them as children. A lot of them would not have reaised they were not the only ones involved and it's only when other start to speak they realise they are not alone.
Sorry, gmc, I don't doubt your sincerity, I just think you're completely out of touch here.
I think you highlight the problem the catholic church has. There are innumarable cases of child abuse within the catholic church carried out by priests and nuns on the helpless. many of which have been proven as true. You just don't want to look objectively at what has happened and prefer to condemn those making the claims - you couldn't even be bothered looking at the links and when you did you ignore the evidence as spurious.
Not being a catholic I don't really care what happens to the catholic church. But I feel sorry for those who feel betrayed and let down and puzzled by those who think the whole issue is merely designed to attack the church. It wasn't non catholics who started all this it was the church's own doing and it's own members making the running. Why do you say you want all, abusive preists punished to the full extent of the law but at the same time so ready to dismiss charges against them as fraudulent? You show a singular lack of compassion for the vistims IMO.
Arrest the pope?
Mark Aspam;1319855 wrote: I'll just reply briefly to a couple of your statements, after which I see no point in MY continuing here, you and the troll are, of course, free to do so.
I'm sorry you think I'm a troll Mark. You start off saying you haven't been following this issue, then demand everyone summarize news and documentaries over the last ten years for you. Even when you are spoon-fed information, you claim no one has answered your questions, rejecting all the evidence and sources. All the while you haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support any of half-baked claims you've made.
Again, you ask the wrong questions. Why did Ratzinger's office do nothing? He's got time to make statements about condoms and other foolishness, you'd think this would be a priority, wouldn't you?
Fundamentally, you don't seem to understand that the church is bound by civil laws. If they don't report rapes and beatings within their organization, that makes them an accessory. If any other multi-billion dollar business tried the same defense as the church has, they would be laughed out of existence.
The church is primarily concerned with projecting a "good appearance". You note nuns and priests rode in separate cars (to avoid the appearance of normal human behavior). That's your example of a higher standard of ethical behavior? Segregation? Behind closed doors the nuns are treated like second class citizens. Just look at the collection of all male officials, and it's plain as the nose on your face that the organization is bigoted towards females. But these charades really seem to impress the people with blinders on.
I'm sorry you think I'm a troll Mark. You start off saying you haven't been following this issue, then demand everyone summarize news and documentaries over the last ten years for you. Even when you are spoon-fed information, you claim no one has answered your questions, rejecting all the evidence and sources. All the while you haven't produced a single shred of evidence to support any of half-baked claims you've made.
Again, you ask the wrong questions. Why did Ratzinger's office do nothing? He's got time to make statements about condoms and other foolishness, you'd think this would be a priority, wouldn't you?
Fundamentally, you don't seem to understand that the church is bound by civil laws. If they don't report rapes and beatings within their organization, that makes them an accessory. If any other multi-billion dollar business tried the same defense as the church has, they would be laughed out of existence.
The church is primarily concerned with projecting a "good appearance". You note nuns and priests rode in separate cars (to avoid the appearance of normal human behavior). That's your example of a higher standard of ethical behavior? Segregation? Behind closed doors the nuns are treated like second class citizens. Just look at the collection of all male officials, and it's plain as the nose on your face that the organization is bigoted towards females. But these charades really seem to impress the people with blinders on.
Arrest the pope?
You know this is a discussion forum where you can share ideas with people who look at things differently. It's not a contest no one has to win the argument. I posted the original post because I find it interesting.
We take for granted that political leaders can be held accountable for their actions and answer at least at the ballot box. Heads of state have been put on trial before, there is precedent. The notion they should be immune only becomes a valid argument when there are those who want to protect somebody and are powerful enough to do it. Pinochet was a case in point, that he was a mass murderer isn't and wasn't disputed. So was Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević - he was put on trial.
It's interesting the Pope claims immunity as a head of sate. Why not as supreme pontiff of the catholic church? Probably because that would open up a whole new can or worms and a debate he doesn't want to start. The latter is a defence no court could accept.
We take for granted that political leaders can be held accountable for their actions and answer at least at the ballot box. Heads of state have been put on trial before, there is precedent. The notion they should be immune only becomes a valid argument when there are those who want to protect somebody and are powerful enough to do it. Pinochet was a case in point, that he was a mass murderer isn't and wasn't disputed. So was Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević - he was put on trial.
It's interesting the Pope claims immunity as a head of sate. Why not as supreme pontiff of the catholic church? Probably because that would open up a whole new can or worms and a debate he doesn't want to start. The latter is a defence no court could accept.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
During a recent conversation I had with Professor Mason Boyne of the Department of Religious Studies at Glasgow University, he informed me that the Roman Catholic Church has initiated a canonization process which seeks to create a Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse. I was fascinated to learn from Professor Boyne that among the individuals whom the Church favours for this sainthood - a sainthood which the Holy Father himself has described as 'urgently required' - are the following:
Gilles de Rais
Marc Dutroux
Andrei Chikatilo
Dr Josef Mengele
John Wayne Gacy
Countess Elizabeth Bathory
When I asked Professor Boyne if the Pope had a personal favourite among the candidates for Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse, he told me that this was indeed the case. Viz...
Gary Glitter
Gilles de Rais
Marc Dutroux
Andrei Chikatilo
Dr Josef Mengele
John Wayne Gacy
Countess Elizabeth Bathory
When I asked Professor Boyne if the Pope had a personal favourite among the candidates for Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse, he told me that this was indeed the case. Viz...
Gary Glitter
Arrest the pope?
Glaswegian;1320153 wrote: During a recent conversation I had with Professor Mason Boyne of the Department of Religious Studies at Glasgow University, he informed me that the Roman Catholic Church has initiated a canonization process which seeks to create a Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse. I was fascinated to learn from Professor Boyne that among the individuals whom the Church favours for this sainthood - a sainthood which the Holy Father himself has described as 'urgently required' - are the following:
Gilles de Rais
Marc Dutroux
Andrei Chikatilo
Dr Josef Mengele
John Wayne Gacy
Countess Elizabeth Bathory
When I asked Professor Boyne if the Pope had a personal favourite among the candidates for Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse, he told me that this was indeed the case. Viz...
Gary Glitter
Naughty naughty, and so close to the 12th of July as well.
Gilles de Rais
Marc Dutroux
Andrei Chikatilo
Dr Josef Mengele
John Wayne Gacy
Countess Elizabeth Bathory
When I asked Professor Boyne if the Pope had a personal favourite among the candidates for Patron Saint of Victims of Child Sexual Abuse, he told me that this was indeed the case. Viz...
Gary Glitter
Naughty naughty, and so close to the 12th of July as well.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
WORLD'S LARGEST PAEDOPHILE ORGANIZATION RECEIVES ADDITIONAL £4 MILLION IN FUNDING FROM BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Newspaper Report
Papal visit costs to rise by £4m - Evening Times | News
Newspaper Report
Papal visit costs to rise by £4m - Evening Times | News
Arrest the pope?
Glaswegian;1320844 wrote: WORLD'S LARGEST PAEDOPHILE ORGANIZATION RECEIVES ADDITIONAL £4 MILLION IN FUNDING FROM BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Newspaper Report
Papal visit costs to rise by £4m - Evening Times | News
Great way to stir up sectarianism don't you think? No doubt the politicians will be hand wringing again and calling for tolerance. I'm not even a christian and I find it annoying.
Newspaper Report
Papal visit costs to rise by £4m - Evening Times | News
Great way to stir up sectarianism don't you think? No doubt the politicians will be hand wringing again and calling for tolerance. I'm not even a christian and I find it annoying.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1319542 wrote: In this [child sexual abuse] cover up the now pope played a central part.
Concerning this point, the following comments may be of interest to you:
RATZINGER IS THE PERFECT POPE
by
Richard Dawkins
"Should Pope Benedict XVI be held responsible for the escalating scandals over clerical sexual abuse in Europe?"
Yes he should, and it's going to escalate a lot further, as more and more victims break through the guilt of their childhood indoctrination and come forward.
"Should he be investigated for how cases of abuse were handled under his watch as archbishop of Munich or as the Vatican's chief doctrinal enforcer?"
Yes, of course he should. This former head of the Inquisition should be arrested the moment he dares to set foot outside his tinpot fiefdom of the Vatican, and he should be tried in an appropriate civil - not ecclesiastical - court. That's what should happen. Sadly, we all know our faith-befuddled governments will be too craven to do it.
"Should the pope resign?"
No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.' From The Washington Post, 28th March 2010
~o0o~
Concerning this point, the following comments may be of interest to you:
RATZINGER IS THE PERFECT POPE
by
Richard Dawkins
"Should Pope Benedict XVI be held responsible for the escalating scandals over clerical sexual abuse in Europe?"
Yes he should, and it's going to escalate a lot further, as more and more victims break through the guilt of their childhood indoctrination and come forward.
"Should he be investigated for how cases of abuse were handled under his watch as archbishop of Munich or as the Vatican's chief doctrinal enforcer?"
Yes, of course he should. This former head of the Inquisition should be arrested the moment he dares to set foot outside his tinpot fiefdom of the Vatican, and he should be tried in an appropriate civil - not ecclesiastical - court. That's what should happen. Sadly, we all know our faith-befuddled governments will be too craven to do it.
"Should the pope resign?"
No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.' From The Washington Post, 28th March 2010
~o0o~
Arrest the pope?
When little kids mix religion and race are almost a non-issue, it's adults that make the divisions. When i was at primary school the town where I lived built a new catholic school. Some of my friends were going to be going to it. I still remember the conversation from eight years old. We're going to a new different school next year. Why? We're Catholics, What's that? It's a different religion. You mean you're not Christians? No we're catholics. Not christian? we're christian but catholic christians, What's the difference? A short time later some of them were being told not to mix with protestants after school just as some of the protestants were told the same thing, it became a feature that there were regular fights between children over differences they didn't understand.
I thought it was dying out but I see it coming back. They fight over the silliest things.
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Should Catholic schools share campuses?
Religious apartheid in the year our lord 2010.
I thought it was dying out but I see it coming back. They fight over the silliest things.
BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Should Catholic schools share campuses?
Religious apartheid in the year our lord 2010.
-
kathaksung
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:48 am
Arrest the pope?
gmc;1316306 wrote: Are you seriously suggesting all those victims threw themselves under a priest just so the catholic church could be discredited thirty years in the future?
No, you made a mistake. It's media collect all these decades old cases together and made an attack on a religious organization. They have a purpose. It's not new for me. They did samething during the time of Iraq war. Here is what I wrote five years ago. Watch how Bush extorted Pope John Paul with sex scadal.
302. Pope's death (Continue to 261-265) (4/7/05)
Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)
In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.
I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope.
John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.
Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace
Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer
Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled.
But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.
Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God
By CHB Staff and Wire Reports
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
"It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.
So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them.
There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.
No, you made a mistake. It's media collect all these decades old cases together and made an attack on a religious organization. They have a purpose. It's not new for me. They did samething during the time of Iraq war. Here is what I wrote five years ago. Watch how Bush extorted Pope John Paul with sex scadal.
302. Pope's death (Continue to 261-265) (4/7/05)
Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)
In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.
I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope.
John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.
Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace
Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer
Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled.
But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.
Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God
By CHB Staff and Wire Reports
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
"It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.
So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them.
There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
kathaksung;1321313 wrote: No, you made a mistake. It's media collect all these decades old cases together and made an attack on a religious organization. They have a purpose. It's not new for me. They did samething during the time of Iraq war. Here is what I wrote five years ago. Watch how Bush extorted Pope John Paul with sex scadal.
302. Pope's death (Continue to 261-265) (4/7/05)
Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)
In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.
I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope.
John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.
Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace
Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer
Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled.
But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.
Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God
By CHB Staff and Wire Reports
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
"It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.
So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them.
There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.
Hi kathaksung.
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
302. Pope's death (Continue to 261-265) (4/7/05)
Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)
In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.
I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope.
John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.
Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace
Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer
Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled.
But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.
Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.
Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God
By CHB Staff and Wire Reports
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18
Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
"It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.
In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.
You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.
So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them.
There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.
Hi kathaksung.
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
Glaswegian;1321326 wrote: Hi kathaksung.
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
Let me give you an example of someone who is troubled by unwanted thoughts, kathaksung.
This individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
Let me give you an example of someone who is troubled by unwanted thoughts, kathaksung.
This individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
-
Glaswegian
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:07 am
Arrest the pope?
kathaksung;1321313 wrote: "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said.
A neutral observer? If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He does not intervene in these affairs in any way, shape or form. So why does the Pope pray to God? Why does he exhort tens of millions of Catholics to do the same? What can the Pope hope to gain from a God who is just a neutral observer? What can the Catholic herd hope to gain from Him?
If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He did not work miracles on this earth 2,000 years ago through Jesus. Or any other miracle for that matter. Consequently, all the stories promulgated by the Catholic Church regarding these things are just lies and nonsense.
If the Pope said "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man" then he is a fool and a hypocrite. Whereas those who allow themselves to be guided by the ‘Vicar of Christ’ are just fools.
A neutral observer? If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He does not intervene in these affairs in any way, shape or form. So why does the Pope pray to God? Why does he exhort tens of millions of Catholics to do the same? What can the Pope hope to gain from a God who is just a neutral observer? What can the Catholic herd hope to gain from Him?
If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He did not work miracles on this earth 2,000 years ago through Jesus. Or any other miracle for that matter. Consequently, all the stories promulgated by the Catholic Church regarding these things are just lies and nonsense.
If the Pope said "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man" then he is a fool and a hypocrite. Whereas those who allow themselves to be guided by the ‘Vicar of Christ’ are just fools.
-
kathaksung
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:48 am
Arrest the pope?
Glaswegian;1321554 wrote: A neutral observer? If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He does not intervene in these affairs in any way, shape or form. So why does the Pope pray to God? Why does he exhort tens of millions of Catholics to do the same? What can the Pope hope to gain from a God who is just a neutral observer? What can the Catholic herd hope to gain from Him?
If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He did not work miracles on this earth 2,000 years ago through Jesus. Or any other miracle for that matter. Consequently, all the stories promulgated by the Catholic Church regarding these things are just lies and nonsense.
If the Pope said "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man" then he is a fool and a hypocrite. Whereas those who allow themselves to be guided by the ‘Vicar of Christ’ are just fools.
Pope has his own opinion. I won't comment. What I want to point out is the current US government and the media under its control have a sex scandal attack on Vatican, the core is Vatican doesn't approve a coming war.
Sex abusing is evil. It's more evil to take advantage on it at the purpose for a war.
If God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man then He did not work miracles on this earth 2,000 years ago through Jesus. Or any other miracle for that matter. Consequently, all the stories promulgated by the Catholic Church regarding these things are just lies and nonsense.
If the Pope said "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man" then he is a fool and a hypocrite. Whereas those who allow themselves to be guided by the ‘Vicar of Christ’ are just fools.
Pope has his own opinion. I won't comment. What I want to point out is the current US government and the media under its control have a sex scandal attack on Vatican, the core is Vatican doesn't approve a coming war.
Sex abusing is evil. It's more evil to take advantage on it at the purpose for a war.
-
kathaksung
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:48 am
Arrest the pope?
Glaswegian;1321326 wrote: Hi kathaksung.
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
Unfortunately, I don't. It may prove something that your tactic to tarnish others if their speech is not your favor.
Why don't make it more direct by saying, "your thought is unwanted by me"?
May I ask you something?
Do you ever find yourself troubled by 'unwanted thoughts'?
Unfortunately, I don't. It may prove something that your tactic to tarnish others if their speech is not your favor.
Why don't make it more direct by saying, "your thought is unwanted by me"?