Church cranks find a new forum: "Catholic Whistleblowers"
(l to r): Marci Hamilton, Fr. Thomas Doyle, Anne Barrett Doyle, Patrick Wall, and Robert Hoatson
In all of 2012, there were exactly six credible abuse allegations made against Catholic priests by current minors in all of 2012 (out of some 40,000 active priests), and the "fewest allegations and victims" ever were tabulated since statistics began to be compiled.
In fact, in a body of 77 million people, contemporaneous accusations of abuse against Catholic clergy in the United States are extremely rare, recently averaging 8 allegations merely deemed "credible" each year.
Yet a new group being trumpeted by the New York Times, "Catholic Whistleblowers," is trying to dupe the public into believing that abuse is somehow still rampant in the Church today.
Same old players with a different team name
Most notably, Catholic Whistleblowers is composed of tired Church bashers whose hatred for the Church has already been well documented before:
- Fr. Thomas Doyle: In addition to a troublesome background, Doyle has essentially admitted that he is not really even Catholic by declaring that he has "nothing to do with the Catholic Church," he has "nothing to do with the clerical life," he is "not associated with the Church in any way," and his beliefs are "about as far away from the Vatican as you can get";
- Marci Hamilton: Hamilton's venom against the Catholic Church cannot be overstated, and one of the leading constitutional scholars in the country once said that her work contained "no substance of scholarship" and exhibited "a reckless disregard for truth";
- Anne Barrett Doyle: Doyle is the director of BishopAccountability.org, an anti-Catholic hate group that masquerades as a library with documents pertaining to Catholic sex abuse;
- Patrick Wall: Wall is an ex-priest who has been promoted as a "canon lawyer," but he isn't. His work in the field of canon law has also been discredited; and
- Robert Hoatson: Hoatson is another angry ex-priest who never met a microphone he didn't love. He recently claimed just weeks ago that he is "dealing at the present moment with 'repressed memory' of abuse that is just coming to mind again in my Catholic grammar school."
In other words, Catholic Whistleblowers is composed of the same-old, tired Church cranks looking to keep the depleted issue of Catholic sex abuse alive in the media.
Goodstein's ongoing obsession
Cheerleader for Church cranks:
The NYT's Laurie Goodstein
Catholic Whistleblowers has accomplished absolutely nothing except put up a weak-looking web site and alert the media about itself. Yet the Times' Laurie Goodstein has treated the formation of this band of old riff-raff as it were some major achievement.
Goodstein is billed as the "National Religion Correspondent" for the New York Times, yet her focus is almost solely aimed at the Catholic Church. Of the 20 articles she has authored or co-authored so far in 2013 for the Times, 18 of them (or 90%) have spotlighted the Catholic Church, and almost all of them portraying it in a negative light.
Goodstein's animus against the Catholic Church has already been well documented, and her glowing profile of this tiny enterprise only adds more to show that the New York Times is the most anti-Catholic newspaper in the country.
Could you please show me something the Catholic Church has done for victims that would put it in a good light?
What CA done for kids abused by teahcers? The teacher in CA could not be fired and he was molesting kids for over 30 years at the same school. They had to buy out his contract. Only laws that are passed are ones that attack the Church but let school teacher off scout free.
"California teachers union kills anti-pedophile law"
Stephen are you a Calif citizen? No? Are you a Catholic? Yes? If so clean your own house first.
Hooray your corporate Church is raping less of it's children. Again Congratulations.
Now how about the one's that were raped? What have you done for them???????
" Sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests”
a study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education:
‘Liberalism’ as it has mutated here has itself become – functionally – a ‘religion’, just like Communism sought for all practical purposes to replace any of its rivals (Christianity, especially) as the primary and ultimate source of Meaning and as the primary and ultimate Framing of the human understanding of being, of life, and of history.
But like Communism, ‘liberalism’ (as it has mutated) has no Beyond; it compresses or Flattens human hopes and all causality into the single dimension of this-world.
As molecules heat up and are agitated into more frenzied activity when they are compressed, so too human beings – compressed into such a Flattened space – are agitated into more frenzied (and often irrational) activity. In the face of such a consequence, the best ‘liberalism’ can do is ooh and ahh at how much ‘freedom’ humans now have to run around a lot. ‘Liberalism’ calls that ‘progress’, which doesn’t quite capture either the essence or the full scope of what it has caused.
Goodstein and the paper she works for have found their niche supporting this new Flattened-religion of ‘liberalism’, and while the positive part of that task is to spin everything ‘liberal’ as happy-face goooood, the negative part of the job is to paint everything represented by rival religions – e.g., the non-Flat Roman Catholic Vision – as baaaad.
In the Abuse Matter, as things get increasingly desperate and it looks like Wimpy is going to have to face Tuesday after all, we are seeing increasing agitation among its Players. And so – with SNAP and associated old and established fronts starting to lose their mystique and Oz-like aura – a new organization is being whomped up to try and Keep The Ball Rolling.
Will they allow themselves to be publicly questioned while being recorded? Only if it’s in front of media types like Goodstein, who can be relied upon to ensure that only the ‘right’ (‘sensitive’) questions are asked and none other.
Somebody turned over another rock and look what crawled out! More so-called Catholics catering to the lunatic fringe. Can we expect another rotten bunch of accusers namning deceased and totally innocent priests in order to sue the Church. Money is indeed the root of all evil, but blood money has its own special place in hell! Rest well all ye who worship such.
I had thought that Goodstein is a useful idiot for liberals. But maybe it IS more sinister than that. It is pretty easy to bias a news story while appearing to be a crusader. Many news outlets have long since morphed into propaganda machines. How many times do newspapers mention that the Catholic church is booming in the south? Or treats the most AIDS patients in Africa? Or educates, feeds and clothes many millions of needy people. Or when innocent priests are exhonerated. Or wrongly jailed.
Regarding your assertion:" Or when innocent priests are exhonerated. Or wrongly jailed."
KIndly put your mouth where your money is: Wfo are all these innocent priests exonerated or wrongly jailed for false allegations?
Mr. Springer,
You imply that Julie needs to name names of priests to defend her statement. Are you, sir, from Mars? Juie can certainly speak (or not, if she so chooses), for herself. Most innocently accugo to sed priests (however, not all) would not like their good name and reputation up for scrutiny over and over in the press or anywhere for that matter. These bogus cases have taken their toll on their lives and health to say the least.
For starters, Mr.Rick Springer, follow the unbiased top notch reporting of Ralph Cipriano on the forum Big Trial.net. regarding its priests put on trial in Philadelphia. Read about Msgr Lynn. Read about the accuser "Billy Doe". You do not get this info from the local paper, certainly not in Philadelphia.
There are many priests that have been investigated thoroughly by law enforcement and their own diocese who have been exonerated. The accuser lied. Their are many others who still have not been exonerated, their ministry put on hold, because witnesses lies are being investigated. I am sure it is the same in other areas. You can read about Fr. Gordon Macrae a name most are familiar with; he has a blog "These Stone Walls". He has a story to tell if you desire to be aware of priests that are believed to be wrongfully accused. He has been writing from jail for a very long time. Read this site in its entirety. Read Pierre's book Double Standard" . Read about the falsely accused in other printed material.
So you see, I am not being critical when I say you do not know it all until you have the whole picture. And if one chooses to question and not listen to the answer, that is disingenuous at the least.
Julie you failed to mention the Church helping to repair the people they've abused. That's the one good thing they have never done.
The death throes of these despicable cannibals (likely imbibing of way too much Cannabis) should be fun to watch.
I do hope that those victimized by these vultures are contacting Hamilton and Anderson to take up their cases.
If it weren't so tragic for the ensnared innocent priests, the demise of the damned would be comical.
Are there non "dispicable cannibals"?
Quit bogarting that j, Billie.
Thank you tto all of these wonderful people who are trying to make our Church better (even if they aren't Catholic – which is irrelevant), These same people were rediculed decades ago for exposing the child abuse that the Church now concedes actually did happen. So why do you hate these people. They exposed thr truth once before against great odds. Nice track record
The mention of hell by CCD (Charlene C. Duline) remined me of this rhyme. Hell is for other people.
Is there anyone besides me , Ecker and Learned Council whose a victim and no longer a Catholic?
Once again, I would point out the gambit of Exaggeration in order to go for the Stampede: very few of the claimed allegations deal with ‘rape’.
And for that matter, what proof is proffered that the majority of ‘rape’ allegations were actually true? In comments on the Economus material from 2 articles back, I pointed out that the Economus claim (that he was raped by a priest who ran the facility for troublesome children to which Economus had been sent) certainly leaves room for a great deal of reasonable doubt: the priest had been dead for 15 years before the allegation was made in 1990 or 1991 (just as Economus was revving up his own group) and that in the interim Economus had entered the seminary to join the organization whose priest had allegedly raped him.
While those elements are not in themselves dispositive, it does make one wonder. Nor does the usual Playbook excuse do much to provide the consolations of rationality: Economus was so internally deranged by the (alleged) rape that he then deliberately chose to the seminary.
Let me describe my definition of rape. The Rape that I refer too, is when you force a child to do what that child doesn't want to do, against that childs will and when what you force or lure a child to do is sexual and criminal. That's my take on rape. sex with underage children any kind of sex is illegal. If you want to take only intercourse as rape and pretend oral is a lesser sin. That's on you.
Got a heads up today to "go check out the latest on mediareports.
In other words, Catholic Whistleblowers is composed of the same-old, tired Church cranks looking to keep the depleted issue of Catholic sex abuse alive in the media. Sounds like mediareports, same old tired cranks trying to protect the church from cover ups.
Well, we are now given JR’s ‘definition’ of rape. And is this the one he will be using today? Or always? Or will we be told in a day or two that he was just joking and we are so dumb and humorless as not-to-have noticed that?
This definition is clearly not the legal definition of rape. Although – as we have seen in both civil and military law recently – there are those who very much would like to expand the definition, like Play-Dough, in that direction and beyond; it would do wonders for the tort-attorney business.
Who can disagree with the statement that “sex with underage children of any kind of sex is illegal”? (Although the statement as written could use a little work; in the military, bits like this in an official report wouldn’t get you promoted; and if mistakes like this were made in launch-codes … ).
So quick to ascribe responsibility to other commenters (“that’s on you”) while coming up with the excuse-du-jour so very often as to why his own material should get a pass. But we are working in a common universe of conversation and discourse here, and we are all not simply stuffed into a group-session in a certain mental shoebox (already crammed with those 3×5 cards). So I will go with the classification and definition that are generally accepted (and were used in the relevant extant evidence) rather than the idiosyncratic one. Idiosyncrasy, by definition, is “on” the ‘idio’ (as it were) and not “on” everybody else.
Nor would I be ‘pretending’, except in relation to that idiosyncratic definitional universe – which is not a place where I choose to operate in the first place.
Get your glasses checked Cardinal George, I may have left out coma's or parantheses in that sentence but I never wrote the word "of" in it. Mister Inaccuracy read it again.
Excuse me, I never wrote 2 "of's" in that sentence.
Gee, wish we could shine that little light into those places where crimes against minors are actually being committed. The "coverup" is that it's OK to look the other way when minors are being harmed - so long as it isn't Catholics causing the harm.
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm
http://morethodoxy.org/2012/05/15/hiding-sexual-abuse-a-lesson-from-rabbi-rosenbergs-big-shofar-by-rabbi-zev-farber/
Hey dippy we're Catholic victims, remember?
[If you want to take only intercourse as rape and pretend oral is a lesser sin. That's on you.]
Rather Clintonian. After all, Himself "did not have sexual relations with that woman".
In Clintonia, the Land of Lefty Loons, they just shared a nice smoke….
LearnedCounsel has it exactly right. Many of the Puritans of 1692 learned that the best way to avoid a witch hunt is to join it. Those Puritans would approve of the purging of the priesthood now underway for it is far more Calvinist than Catholic. This Whistleblowers' group is the natural result of puritanical self-righteousness run amok among some frightened and misguided priests all too ready to throw someone else under SNAP's speeding bus. Thank you, Dave Pierre, for your reason and sanity.
We look forward to the day when you are no longer Victims, but Catholics who have come back home-
Will our rapes disappear in the incense? Magical thinking is niether.
If I didn't know better, I would think that Bishop Accountability's website took a nuteral look at the sex abuse scandal. The funny thing is, I visit Bishop Accountabilty's website every so often and I see articles from this website. I wonder if this one will turn up?
Hello James,
It is true I am NO longer a practicing or devout catholic as they say one should be. However, the catholic church still feels I am. I have sent numerous requests to Archbishop Chaput and other bishops across the country to be EXCOMMUNICATED from the catholic church under their so-called canon law.
Each time I get a response it is always the same answer "since I was baptised in the catholic church there is no leaving unless I committed a crime against the pope. The letter I have received back also states they do this in case I want to come back to the church.
Now after many letters and many years you may have thought they got the hint.
I would be ashamed to be a CATHOLIC
Then I did some searching myself and learned one of the main reasons they will not excommunicate is they take those baptismal records and use them to receive tax breaks, non profit funding and anything else you can think of.
The next time you read in the paper or hear on television the catholic church has 2 billion members don't believe it. IT IS A LIE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN TELLING FOR YEARS.
Hope your doing good
P.S. I do try to be the best Christian I can be.
I believe the Church claims 1 and a quarter billion members, Dennis; and I believe you and I and Learned Council are counted in that number. Sorry.
I do believe that the lefty propagandists here are now giving the gnats-ass a proctologists' exam. I wonder if they use their inglorious "glory-holes" for that venture?
I suppose when you can't win the debate with truths and your new lies, as documented from your very own mouths, contradict your old lies, you have no where else to go but back to kindergarten.
Which, sadly, as is also evidenced by our current Administration, is where the whole lefty emotional IQ resides.
JR is correct – he did not put an “of” in his sentence; which simply reduces its comprehensibility even further. I take responsibility for that misquote. When I am reading so much of his material, I have to try to insert mentally the missing bits and pieces in order to achieve at least a modicum of coherence in the material, and here I wound up putting my own mental corrections into JR’s originally incoherent statement. I will try even harder not to let coherent-grammar and JR’s material come into contact when I comment.
And once again: there is absolutely no way – except credulous belief – that any readers have of knowing if anybody here is one of the “Catholic victims” or indeed if anybody here is actually a one of the “victims” at all. But that presumption is an essential presumption in order to make the Cartoon work, whether in the internet mode or even in face-to-face conversation (i.e. can any self-claiming “victims” actually demonstrate proof – rather than belief – that any other self-claiming “victims” are actually what they say they are?).
And again we get a rather (uncharacteristically) specific psychological diagnostic term: “magical thinking”. (And I have been careful here not to misquote the incomprehensible “magical thinking is niether”.)
Yes, if one were to expect that “our rapes” would “disappear” then that might be construed as “magical thinking”. But since i) readers here cannot have any way of knowing if there were such “rapes” (except to credit with their belief the various queasy and loose-with-facts types here) and since ii) the commentary here deals almost completely with providing whatever assistance might be provided to genuine victims – once that rather substantial river is crossed – then there is really nothing that qualifies as “magical thinking”. There is no “magic” in it.
Rather, there is a sustained effort to constructively address a challenge that is in so very many ways difficult to accurately-envision in order to then develop effective responses.
The general psychological definition of “magical thinking” is that one believes that an event happens because it is caused by another event, with no plausible or observable connection between the two. One might refine or nuance that a bit and say that “magical thinking” involves believing in things more strongly than evidence or experience would support or justify.
And it only gets more complicated – and symptomatically worse – if somebody insists that others must take one’s own “magical thinking” for established and verified and verifiable ‘fact’. And then further berates others if they do not do so, and ascribes to them all manner of bad or evil motivations for their not-doing so.
Thus, I would say, to assert and insist that SNAP is and always has been a tool of the Church (and does that also extend to this new Whistleblower group also being a tool of the Church?) is surely a candidate for characterization as “magical thinking”.
It might also be legitimately proposed that the Rime of the Ancient Mariner gambit here – trying to keep the world and time in a temporal stasis reaching back decades – is itself a form of “magical thinking”. Especially when the Ancient Mariner’s claims are impossible to verify and may well be subject to numerous (already demonstrated) distortions of thought and expression.
Lastly, may I also add a bit to the ‘MacDonald’ comment about Calvinism and Puritanism? Because there is indeed a clear difference between the Church’s historical approach to sin and Calvin’s approach to sin (and the further intensifications to Calvin’s thought that have occurred in the intervening centuries, especially in American fundamentalism).
The Church’s approach was grounded in the combined dynamics flowing from both a) the Creation in the Image of God and b) the concept of Original Sinfulness or the Fallen State of Humans: humans were Created in that Image and must always struggle to achieve an ever-sharper congruence with that Image within themselves, but they are born with in innate tendency to reject that Image and its obligations and responsibilities in order to gratify themselves (whereby Original Sin causes Actual Sin).
Clearly such a Human reality requires the Church to exercise some patience with the inevitable failures of Humans to achieve and sustain that congruence; otherwise the Church would – like Calvin – wind up condemning far more than it forgave. Thus Penance as a sacrament, based in that reality and providing Humans who acknowledge their actual-sins with an opportunity to re-commit or rededicate themselves to the path they had forsaken when they committed those Actual Sin(s).
Calvin was far more rigorous: Actual Sin was a form of ‘treason’ to the Christian polity, and had to be treated as such. Christians became Citizens of the Christian polity (as his immediate early followers were Citizens of Geneva) and therefore their primary spiritual as well as civic responsibility was not to commit such treason. To his mind – so heavily and in such a non-Mediterranean way strict and unbending, and heavily invested in the guiding image of a civic polity such as Geneva – a) no polity could separate the civic and the spiritual and b) no polity could countenance ‘treason’, civic or spiritual.
Later developments of Calvin’s thought quickly fell into a profound abhorrence of the presence of sin (and the sinners who committed sin) and a rigorous impatience with such sin and ‘treason’. There being no sacramental authority to forgive in Calvin’s church polity, then the congregation had no choice but to condemn and cast out the sinner.
As RAM infers in his comment, a Calvinist-based polity would be deeply fearful of Sin operating in its midst, and thus of sinners disguised as one of the ‘elect’. And even more so would it be fearful of the Devil – who is the source of all Sin – and especially of those who were in league with the Devil. Thus the acute and ever-molten Protestant fear of witches – male or female – because they operated as traitors within the polity’s and congregation’s midst; much as Americans in the McCarthy era feared American ‘Reds’ even more than non-American Red spies and agents.
Nor, of course, could any such failed-congregants ever be forgiven, in the sacramentally-bereft Calvinist vision.
The Church – from early times – took a more Mediterranean and arguably more Gospel approach, based on Christ’s parable of the Wheat and the Tares, as well as on the ultimate responsibility of the Church to minister precisely to a fallen humanity (while being herself a human organization, comprised of humans, although with a divine commission). All Christians were responsible for fulfilling their Baptismal commission yet all – regardless of their status and role – were subject to Original Sin.
Thus Catholics who sinned (meaning, sooner or later, all Catholics) were seen not as Citizens who had committed deliberate and willful (and perhaps premeditated) treason against God and their congregation, but rather as beings Created in the Image of God and thus – through God’s Will as expressed in Christ – are worthy of forgiveness.
The difference here is profound.
RAM also then notes acutely what happens in a community when such fears and concerns are focused on a particular group – ‘witches’. And what happens when you get a Stampede going.
I would also point out that the justice system in the colony also became Stampeded. Because although in England at that time the appreciation of Western Law (so dependent upon canon-law models) was developing toward the mature form we knew in this country until the recent Stampede, and thus in England ‘spectral evidence’ had already been rejected, yet the Salem trial judges still went ahead and admitted it as ‘evidence’ – and thus the Salem Stampede, fortified by justicial complicity, roared on.
I would also note that the Governor in Boston finally became worried and sent to London for guidance; when he was advised by the Crown in no uncertain terms that the whole thing had to be stopped immediately, he did so, ordering that ‘spectral evidence’ not be admitted as evidence. Almost immediately, the Salem Witch Trial Craze came to an abrupt end, and no further allegations of witchcraft were made. Prisoners were released, charges were dropped, but the already-executed – of course – were beyond recall.
Magical thinking is a description of religious superstition (redundent I know).i.e. If I throw this particular virgin into the volcano the volcano won't erupt. Or if a pray this way or that I'll gain or lose paradise. Supernatural intervention triggered by human actions (prayers, for example) is a narcisisstic construct at best.
It's like your saying: See, I have the right religion. God's paying attention to me. LOL!
Keep up the good work, Delphin! Let's pray for more angels.
Commenter ‘Ecker’ reports that he has written requesting excommunication and has been refused.
He has been told, he says, that he would have to do something “against the Pope” to be excommunicated. Presuming that he doesn’t effect an act such as sodomy with a reigning Pontiff on a privileged altar then I suppose he is simply going to have to live with the unhappy fact of his residual Catholic identity – although nobody need ever know about it unless he chooses to reveal it.
But that, I think, is precisely the nub: a formal act of excommunication would be fine grist for the mill of further ‘victimization’ – perhaps even as a glaring example of ‘punishment as a whistle-blower’ or some such – and in best Alinsky-ite fashion it could serve as fodder for a nice little press conference, for such media types as might choose to attend nowadays.
Unfortunately, the Pope can’t simply get up in the morning, look over a list, and tell his secretary to ‘excommunicate this one and that one there’. Especially without evidence supporting the canonical regulations governing excommunication. Thus – alas for him – Mr. Ecker’s rights are protected by canon law and various Church regulations.
The hot ironies.
And as I get ready to submit this comment, I note that we are now provided with another ‘definition’ from the mental shoebox full of 3×5 cards: “magical thinking is a description of religious superstition” which, as he knows, is “redundent” [sic]. The world will surely look different if all of JR’s definitions from the shoebox and the sandbox are to be taken as actually accurate. But that needn’t be the case for anybody else. Although it is continually interesting – “remarkable”, some professionals would perhaps put it – to see the mental workings unfold.
Anyhoo, if JR could provide some evidence of where Catholic theology advises or requires the throwing of a virgin into a volcano, or that if one does “pray this way or that” one will “gain or lose paradise”, then that would be helpful. Although – if I may – evidence would have to be provided from the Catholic-theology that actually exists in the real world, rather than whatever simulacrum passes for Catholic-theology on the cards in the shoebox.
Goodstein is the worst–bar none.
Catholic Theology does not require throwing a virgin into a volcano, it requires nailing one to a cross. It is a cult of human sacrafice. And this is its central and most immoral docterine, that of vicarious redemption.
LMFAO! Virgins on crosses
Eating one's diety could never be equated to playing toss the virgin into the volcano. Ever.
7 June 9:21p Comment is a lie. And, if this commenter will lie about such an easily checked fact, we must assume all information is highly suspect.
If the financial settlement payouts to the "victims" and the counselling services offered by the Church is not "reparation", what is?
Would self immolation suffice?
Perhaps, monthly "payouts" ("churchfare"); such as when the "victims" exhaust all their Church booty on drugs, booze, bling and hookers ala Billy Doe would satisfy?
Delphin,
Does not matter what the victims do with THEIR money.
I hope Billy Doe uses $100.00 bills to light cigars.
You will NEVER have the right to questions what he does with it. Now or in the future. Get use to it.
I don't think JR quite understands Publion's posts. I notice that JR keeps uses SNAP's tactics – keep saying the church has done nothing for victims even though it has. Using child, rape and church in the same sentence over and over in order to shock and drive up hatred against the church. JR, your tactics are transparent and so I don't know what your goal is here. To get us to leave the church? No way. To try and get Catholics to go away permanently? We've been around for 2,000 years. I often skip over JR's posts now because they are the same thing over and over again with no intent to resonable discourse and a good look at the Abuse matter. JR always misses the point but I suppose that is deliberate.
Is it news to anybody that "Catholic theology" didnt' create the Crucifixion but rather was presented with the Crucifixion as an established historical fact? Or is that fact being called into doubt here?
The Eucharist was established rather clearly in the Gospel – is that in doubt?
If certain commenters do not grasp the theological significance of the Eucharist, and do not grasp the difference between the Mass and a bunch of primitives sitting around a campfire with a body in a stewpot just coming to a boil, then we most certainly do have some seriously deficient theological commenters here. Which is what it is, and the readership may make of it what they see fit.
If theological explanations are required, they will gladly be furnished upon request. Otherwise, the foregoing ketchup-splattered napkins from the cafeteria (or the dayroom) are best left hanging where they were put up.
There is absolutely no proof that the crucifiction happened There's no proof historicaly external to the gospels that he ever existed. And the gospels were writen and more importantly compiled hundreds of years after his so called death/ resurection. You guys are the tail end of 2000 yrs of tyranny. A myth based dictatorship who held and still holds tremendous sway over the way things are.
You priemier Christians hurt a lot of innocent people in your day and you're still hurting people with your beliefs. That's the simple truth of it. That's the path you've chosen and you have every right to.
But there is one thing you do not have a right to and that's to limit a dialog about what the truth is. You used to claim that "right" over people and you still want to. Not all of you, for sure, but more than enough. Particularly here.
Hello P,
How come the catholic church is the only faith that you cannot leave or should I say be disocciated from ?
I know they need every little bit of that money they receive from tax payers to pay their debts, to help a sinking ship.
CROOKS ?
First Billy's recieved no settlement monies yet, Billie. And what he spends his just compensation on is none of your business. Let's pretend Billy's a hierarch, you've no say how they spend money either.
[edited by moderator]
The Catho-bashers just keep making our point for us: it has Nothing to do with punishing errant (homosexual) priests abusing minors and Everything to do with punishing our religion.
Keep "talking" there, haters – your own lips continue to deceive you-
Which is more important truth or belief?
Touched another nerve, there, girls-didn't I? So long as you two petunia's are worried about the Catholic Church coffers, I'll continue to monitor how your fraud "victims" spend their ill-gotten gains.
And, now that the IRS can be set upon our citizens thanks to your lefty Dear Leader, we may soon learn what the lefty-ite welfarers do with all my redistributed hard-earned tax money.
There goes that vicious dog ("Queenie" seems an appropriate name-yes?) you created biting it's own daddy, again.
Hey I.Q.Less, I have no shame in being compared to women, in fact I'm honored. I like women. my mom was one.
[edited by moderator]
I'm not bashing your religion by mentioning it's foibles. I'm simply telling you the truth.
If the contradictions in your beliefs appear. It's not my fault they exist.
But I should apologize to all here. If I've been unkind or flip with your beliefs and it's hurt your feelings. I have to say well that's just too damned bad.
Get over it.
That's what you told us to do.
How do you like it?
Commenter Ecker comes – characteristically – with a plaint of victimization: he is not being allowed to leave the Church.
Of course, the comment has no functional meaning: he is perfectly free to stop going to Church or participating in any way in things-Catholic. And proclaiming so in as public a way as he might wish.
So what then is he actually complaining about? That the Church isn’t going to take him off the books by erasing his name from its master-list? Of what conceivable practical concern would that be to anybody who actually wanted to be done with things-Catholic? It’s not like he was telling the IRS he didn’t really consider himself an American anymore and didn’t want to pay taxes any longer. Or like he was a military serviceman who suddenly decides he wants out but they won’t open the front gate for him.
Further, commenter Ecker – being a Catholic and presumably having had a Catholic education – already has the answer to the question he is here posing like Goldilocks at the porridge bowl: Baptism creates an indelible mark on the soul and no human power can change that. (Even if one were to take the actions necessary to incur excommunication, the mark on the soul would not be expunged.)
He is free to “disassociate” himself from the Church, but the Baptismal involvement is a sacrament, which – is this news? – is actually the work of God, and is only mediated by the earthly ministerial instrument of the Church.
The Church is not free to disassociate herself from him – unless he commits specific and particularly grave offenses. He is welcome to go that route, although I do not advise it.
Of course, he is also welcome to adopt a non-theistic Stance and simply claim that the whole thing with Church and/or God and all the other stuff is “imaginary”. Perhaps a chummy exchange of emails or calls with others who have chosen that path would be of use to him. Or he might engage in a clubby back-and-forth, just-entre-nous type of commenting so often seen on other sites and even – to a lesser but thus more obvious extent – on this site: Gee, X, isn’t it amazing we are the only decent guys commenting on this site? Yeah, Y, ain’t we grand? That sort of thing.
But then Goldilocks – innocent and victimized – suddenly bares teeth: the Church is just a bunch of “crooks” (I omit here the exaggerated formatting of the original). Thus the pose suddenly shifts not over the course of a day or a week, but in mid-comment.
Whether the “taxpayers” bit is merely a figurative turn of phrase referring to Catholics whose contributions are (allegedly) being used to pay off these highly dubious settlements (to such as himself?) or whether this is an entirely new and sudden accusation rather clunkily tossed in … is anybody’s guess.
Whether the Church is actually “a sinking ship” is also a question to which the answer is hardly established. Ecker here joins a long and largely forgotten line going back for 2000 years. But – as with the Millerites – maybe this time the hoped-for Event will actually occur. He is welcome to stand on whatever hilltop he has selected to experience this Fulfillment and put on a white robe for his Rapture. I would recommend he bring along a few loaves and fishes in case the wait is longer than anticipated; perhaps a jug of his favorite Kool-Aid as well. Waiting for the end of the Church can be thirsty work.
Again, as I have said in prior comments on this site recently, we see the remarkably characteristic gambit of striking a pose. Which gambit is thrown into even more vivid relief as the pose is suddenly shifted – almost 180 degrees – within the space of a single paragraph.
How much of a role, I wonder, has this capacity to strike a pose (or several) played in the entire Catholic Abuse Matter?
Thank you, everyone.
We are closing this thread for now.