Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-17-2002, 06:06 PM | #61 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 312
|
Because you devote your life to an organization that takes your money and uses it to make it easier for Father Brown to give little Timmy the "very special communion" in the back room?
|
12-17-2002, 08:04 PM | #62 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
|
Quote:
Quote:
Rather, galiel is acknowledging that Law certainly does not live a life of poverty, given his apparent wealth. You reply: Quote:
Then you add: Quote:
Furthermore, the information he presented was "straight." You were attempting to correct a statement he did not make. Main Entry: ar·ro·gance Pronunciation: 'ar-&-g&n(t)s Function: noun Date: 14th century : a feeling or an impression of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or presumptuous claims <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=arrogance" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster</a> Judging by your defence of a statement that was never made, it is apparent that you believed galiel to be making presumptious claims re: Cardinal Law's obligations. If you did not think that was what he was doing, you would not have commented as you did. |
||||
12-17-2002, 09:41 PM | #63 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 312
|
Don't take it personally, Gal... the Catholic layity will grasp at any straws to defend their holy mother church. Even if the Pope himself came to Central Park and forced a 6 year old to "kiss the little Jesus" in front of 10,000 witnesses, they'd still blame it on the New Mass.
|
12-18-2002, 05:29 AM | #64 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: England, the EU.
Posts: 2,403
|
Quote:
|
|
12-18-2002, 05:39 AM | #65 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: England, the EU.
Posts: 2,403
|
Quote:
If she doesn't stop some of her posts may need to be deleted. |
|
12-18-2002, 05:41 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Racine, Wi. USA
Posts: 768
|
Gemma
Because I think that you suffer from a mental disease. I call it the SWI syndrome. It means, Selective, Wilfull Ignorance. You are probably an intelligent and well educated person but you have made a concious choice to supress your inteligence and education where your religious beliefs are concerned. There is hope for recovery of course, but, like alcoholism, the sufferer has to want to recover. The Admiral |
12-18-2002, 05:45 AM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new york
Posts: 608
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.icspublications.org/images/lisieux.jpg" target="_blank">Lisieux</a> <a href="http://www.smcenter.org/images/S-DAMIEN-HANSEN.jpg" target="_blank">Damien-Hansen</a> <a href="http://www.cakmalta.org/convmalta/india/images/kolbe.jpg" target="_blank">Kolbe</a> [Sorry, Gemma - but the big pictures were messing stuff up. BJM] [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p> |
|
12-18-2002, 06:17 AM | #68 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I think poor Cardinal Law moved the priests around to protect both the children and the priests who themselves were victims of a very hypocratic puritan society. |
|
12-18-2002, 06:34 AM | #69 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
Posts: 1,255
|
Quote:
a) not reporting abuse cases to the police, paying off the families to avoid lawsuits, and threatening to declare the Archdiocese bankrupt if they don't back off, constitutes "protecting the children" b) abusive priests are "victims" of anything other than their own shitty luck in getting found out. I can understand that you love your church. I can understand that you want to protect its reputation. I can understand that you don't want to accept that a Cardinal can be a bad, immoral person. But the bottom line is that the victims here are the children. No amount of counter-accusation against the media or "society" changes that. The Boston scandal seems very similar to the current outrage in the UK over the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster. He too covered up abuse by paying off the victims and moving the priests around. In one case, he moved a paedophile to the chaplaincy of Gatwick Airport, in the hope that he wouldn't encounter children there. Unfortunately, it didn't stop the priest from re-offending, and he's now in jail. Other cases included a self-confessed abuser who was rehoused by the Church - in a street that faced onto a primary school playground. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor has offered many excuses for his actions - the idea that "nobody understood the obsessive nature of paedophilia at the time" (fifteen years ago?), the idea that the RC Church is facing a media witch-hunt (ha ha, pun surely not intended) - but the blame for these messes remains in the hands of the Cardinals who avoided their responsibilities. That's why they should go; that's why the Vatican should be taking a harder line on abuse within the Church; and that's why former Catholics like me find ourselves losing any vestiges of respect we had for the Church. |
|
12-18-2002, 06:38 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: new york
Posts: 608
|
Quote:
Gemma Therese |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|