Professional anti-Catholic bigot: The Boston Globe's Michael Rezendes
There comes a point when an individual shows such contempt for the truth that one can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt and must conclude that he is an unabashed bigot.
Such is the case with Michael Rezendes, the crack reporter from The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, who has recently been repeatedly making the claim in media appearances in recent weeks that the Catholic Church has somehow "not dealt with" the decades-old issue of clergy sex abuse.
Oh, the tangled webs we weave
Shining the light of truth:
Writer Thomas J. Nash
Enter writer Thomas J. Nash, who read Rezendes' piece and also saw an interview appearance by Rezendes on CBS This Morning discussing his work.
In a must-see article in Catholic World Report, Nash notes that Rezendes is "seriously mistaken in claiming that the Vatican has failed to establish polices" regarding priests fathering children.
"[W]hat Rezendes asserts is simply not true and not befitting a Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist. The Code of Canon Law, issued in 1983, and which continues longstanding Church policy, specifically addresses clerical sins regarding the Sixth Commandment, i.e., regarding sexual sins that encompass fathering a child, and conveys such a priest should be suspended from clerical ministry (CIC, canon 1395; cf. canon 277.3)."
But, most troubling, Rezendes, in his interview with CBS, claimed that that "after all these years of having to confront the problem, the Vatican has still not come up with a set of policies for dealing with the problem of clergy sexual abuse."
However, nothing could be further from the truth! As Nash noted, the Vatican has long had protocols in place to deal with abuse by priests, including those embedded in Canon law.
And, as we have discussed numerous times over years, the Catholic Church was tackling the issue within its ranks even before 1985 – over 30 years ago, when cases of clergy sex abuse first began receiving national attention.
"As early as 1982, we saw policies and procedures coming to the attention of the USCCB (the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) regarding specific child molestation cases," Teresa Kettelkamp, executive director of the Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection for the USCCB, has reported. "By 1983, 157 dioceses had policies in place."
These policies formulated the bishops' "Five Principles" in dealing with allegations of abuse. Bishops first articulated them in 1987 and then publicly pronounced them in 1992.
And since 2002, the USCCB has been conducting and publishing annual audits to ensure that dioceses have complied with safeguarding and reporting policies.
In the end, even though abuse has soiled every organization that works with children, no other organization on the planet even comes close in its efforts to rectify its past and prevent future abuse. Nash concludes (emphasis added):
"Rezendes is guilty of libel, and as a journalist I don't use the term lightly. The U.S. Supreme Court landmark decision in NY Times vs. Sullivan, issued in 1964, established the modern standard for libel of public figures: 'knowing falsity' or 'reckless disregard of the truth.' While Church leaders in Rome presumably won't bring a lawsuit against Rezendes and the Globe, a case could be made …
"[I]t is at least reckless for Rezendes not to know about and report on canon 1395, given the extensive reporting he has also done on priests' fathering children. For an accomplished investigative reporter, there's simply no excuse for the statements Rezendes made to CBS."
Rezendes' bigotry
Indeed, if there were any question as to whether Rezendes' falsehoods were intentional, a recent appearance should put the matter to rest. On a June 29, 2017, appearance on local Boston TV show "Greater Boston," Rezendes recklessly asserted, "The Church has not dealt with this problem, and until the Church deals with the problem head on, we're going to see scandal after scandal after scandal … The Church can't come to grips with this … This is a systemic problem within the Church."
Without a doubt, Rezendes is not only completely unhinged but a professional anti-Catholic bigot if ever there were one.
[See also: "Five Fast Facts About the Media's Catholic Church Sex Abuse Narrative"]
I know this is false, see what my Diocese has setup, https://sccatholic.org/policy
Adam, It's not the fact of having a policy, it's living up to that policy, where your church has exhibited just about complete failure in protecting the innocent.
The rarity of priests fathering children percentile wise as compared to clerics who have molested children would be lovely to know.
It would also lovely to know ,percentile comparative between what the church has done for and to priest created families as compares to what it has not done for clerical sex abuse victims.
Odd you would call a man, who you believe to be libelous, a "crack reporter".
….and Dan and Publion are going to litter this combox in 3….2…..1….
KenW, As long as the deceptions, lies, slander, accusations and corruption continues, then I guess I'll be here to set things straight. I've yet to see you add any great wisdom to this discussion, or are you just the litter box that holds the "litter".
See what you did KenW. Lol!
It is what it is that ‘Ken W’ finds the comment-box ‘littered’. Perhaps he was already conversant with all the many topics that have been raised, or perhaps they don’t interest him.
Perhaps he is simply intently focused on the Catholic Abuse Matter in narrower terms. Fair enough. Has the record of his submissions here demonstrated the fruits of any such intense and informed focus?
Recently, on the immediately prior thread, I had made some comments on one of the most current aspects of the Catholic Abuse Matter, i.e. the Royal Commission Report in Australia and the Cardinal Pell topic. The record of his comments on that topic is what it is.
Now that time has passed (and innocents have been sent to slaughter) we are beginning to see that 'The Clergy Sexual Abuse' Saga was but the beginning of a massive anti Catholic campaign .. perhaps the largest and most vicious since the 'Anti popery troubles in England of the 19th century. It has, I suspect been carefull orchestrated for a long while (30 years? Really? Possibly!). Catholics have been told in America that there is no place for them in the Democrat party and in England no less than the exalted personage , The Speake of The House of Commons has likewise said there should not be Catholics in Parliament. Hmm.. The anti Catholic globalist movement which sought to destroy The Austro Hungariian Empire has continued its horrendous agenda ever since. The EU aided and abetted by Ms Clinton and O'Bama has interfered in the politics of Hungary, Estonia and Poland in order to extinguish Catholicism in those countries. Do not mistake the persecution of many innocent priests(and some guilty ones ) for a narrowly limited campaign..it is much wider and more horrible as well as more determined than the prosecution of a few priests. That sadness is, the bishops have rolled over and ditched their priests, paid off the blackmailers and have never bothered to find out who was guilty and who was innocent. Let us pray that the current onslaught on Hungary, Poland and Estonia as well as Catholics in civil life in America and England can withsatnd the latest persecution.
Good try, Jose, Should read, "many guilty priests (and some innocent ones)". More propaganda? Any persecution against your church is more than well deserved. When you're plain guilty, that it isn't persecution, but exposing the filth of a disgusting religion. Any true Christian is required by the Lord to perform such a work.
"Have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible…" Ephesians 5:11-13 Guess your cult should come out of the closet.
Michael Rezendes, of the Boston Globe, presents a dubious picture re honesty and competence. Thomas J. Nash says what he has asserted is completely untrue… and it is not befitting a Pulitizer-Prize winning journalist. Dave Pierre concludes that Rezendes is a unabashed anti-Catholic bigot. Personally what I found when doing investigative work, (auditing) was that leopards rarely change their spots. Meaning It is hard to fathom that a journalist, revealing such low standards today, could have been possessing high standards in his past. In order to justify being awarded the most prestigious prize in his profession?. But wait….I just remembered a guy who won that prize in the 1930's…..for a series of supposedly on-the-spot reports about conditions then prevailing in Russia. Overflowing with lavish praise for the new "workers paradise". Turned out it was all utter baloney… and the propaganda was just fed to him by his Russian minders….as he sat drinking whisky, in his hotel in Moscow.
Malcolm, And you're under the impression that your cult doesn't pour out "propaganda" by the ton or ever "utter baloney". You catholic accusers are an utter joke!
What is the problem with you catholics? You call those who want to see change in the churches handling of any Sexual Abuse Matters, or any opponent of your church, anti-catholic bigots, haters or on a witch-hunt. All we ever hear from you when confronted with another pervert or pedophile of your church, is denials, excuses, deception and outright lies. Do you believe this to be the proper way a "True Church of God" would respond to the "systemic" and repetitive disgusting crimes against innocent children? This is God's Word in regard to how His True Church would NEVER be involved in any such crimes against chidren.
"But among you there MUST NOT BE EVEN A HINT of SEXUAL IMMORALITY, or of any kind of IMPURITY, or of GREED, because these are IMPROPER for God's holy people." Eph 5:3
"Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry." Colossians 3:5
And for those who insist on the Catholic Bible version (NAB) – "Immorality or ANY impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones." Eph 5:3
"Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is, an idolator, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." [PERIOD] Eph 5:5 UCCSB (NAB)
Explain to me how you think my presenting you with Biblical Truth makes me this terrible, mentally disturbed or delusional person. The Accuser and compulsive liar of this forum wishes to brainwash and destroy the truth of the Lord's Word, and I refuse to let him. Come out of this corrupt wicked cult while there is still time. Don't allow them to control your mind!
P.S. If any catholics have a problem understanding the Bible in English, you can find it in the language of your choosing all over the internet. Read the Word and trust God, not man.
The bunch of ‘Dan’ comments are of a piece, the bottom line being that he merely presumes his presumptions and then professes himself bemused and cawn’t think why Catholics don’t ‘see’ what he doth see.
Well, clearly, if nobody can see what ‘Dan’ doth ‘see’, then they must be ignorant or evil or both. But could it be that what ‘Dan’ doth ‘see’ isn’t actually the only possible thing to see? Might all his pericopes apply to him – in ways he insists cannot be so?
‘Dan’ cawn’t allow himself to imagine that possibility; his whole shtick would collapse and his head would explode.
But the Rezendes gambit – trying to keep things in the time-frame of decades ago – is and must be ‘Dan’s gambit as well.
Thus (the 15th at 1201AM) ‘Dan’ doth don his favorite Wig and strike his favorite pearl-clutching Pose, once again asking “What is the problem with you catholics?”. And fortified by Rezendes, ‘Dan’ even allows himself to be joined to some “we”.
Then a passel of pericopes.
Which – but of course – ‘Dan’ proffers as the one and only “Biblical Truth”. Once again, the pericopes could as easily indict ‘Dan’ and his shtick. (Unless you buy ‘Dan’s carefully calibrated scam: he may be crazy, but he’s “pure”, doncha see? And he’s no ‘idolater’.)
He then tries to weasel out of the “may be crazy” part by piggybacking his presentation of (his own) “Biblical Truth” with mental health (his own, in its so dubious and damaged state).
Thus, in sly and deceptive switcheroo, he tries to put this one over: “how … presenting you with Biblical Truth makes [him] this terrible, mentally disturbed or delusional person”.
First, he’s clearly off the rails in presuming that his take on Biblical Truth is the only possible take on Biblical Truth.
Second, his own acts and words have gotten him a police and psychiatric record longer than all but a tiny fraction of people, including priests.
Third, he thinks that simply by waving all that away as “lies” he has somehow not only a) cleared himself of both the “crazy” bits and the presumptive bits about (his take on) Biblical Truth but also b) established himself as the heroic, truthy, “pure” and ever-competent (and speshully-divinely authorized) proponent of (his take on) Biblical Truth.
Let us know when you're through with your compulsive lying and slandering. For the umpteenth time, catholic liars that slandered me had nothing to do with my material. They were blatant liars, like yourself, who seem to derive some sick pleasure from lying about others. Apparently you've yet to understand that there will be a high price to pay for every lying word to spew from your forked tongue, Hypocrite. Crawl back under the mud you slithered out from, Porky Perjuring Pig. I'm done with you wicked lying fools, but most of all the Accusing Perverter of Truth, Publiar. Never forget that "weasels" kill snakes, but you're more of a slimy worm.
I added none of my own interpretation to the Biblical quotes that I presented on 9/15 @ 12:01am, so they had nothing to do with my "take on Biblical Truth". The Bible quotes described the wickedness of your false catholic cult perfectly, just as the quotes 9/10 @ 11:12pm described the DECEITFUL LIARS that belong to your cult, you being one of the most prolific examples. Must make you one proud hypocrite.
I happen to notice that when you've got nothing, which is the majority of your ignorance, you revert back to mentioning the catholic lies and false accusations against me or stupidly mocking God, His Word or His Chosen (i.e. speshully-divinely authorized). You're nothing but a lying coward, pursuing the works of your father, Satan, thinking you can lie and slander so much that your accusations become the truth. Nothing but a worthless creep. Any catholic that believes your garbage needs their head examined. servant of the Lord
End of story.
On the 15th at 757PM, ‘Dan’ again merely waves it all away as “lies” (the variant this time around: “compulsive lying and slandering”). And he riffs on for the rest of that paragraph, hitting some of his now-familiar talking points: God’ll-getcha, “Perjuring” (clearly he does not comprehend the denotation of that term), assorted name-calling, and – once again – the pearl-clutching taking of his leave (“I’m done with you wicked lying fools” … and so on).
STUPIDITY from "Porky Purjuring Pig" - Of course I know the term refers to lying in court. I chose a word fitting to work with your love of lying and Cartoon Time. If you're willing to habitually lie like you do in this forum, do you believe you would be any different than the other catholic liars (priests, nuns, cops), who purjured themselves in court in order to put me through my " legal misadventures", as you sarcastically like to refer.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:
Then a nicely obvious gambit: the smarmy (and deceptive) bleat that he hath “added none of [his] own interpretations” … at least to “the Biblical quotes presented on 9/15 at 1201am”.
First of all: after all this time it is impossible not to presume that any negative pericopes he quotes are to be taken as the Biblical writers’ ‘prophetic’ denunciation of the Church, uniquely and specifically. That’s the gravamen of his “take” on Scripture.
Second: in the second sentence of the second paragraph specifically makes that connection when he claims that “the Biblical quotes” that he put up “described the wickedness of your false catholic cult perfectly”, and so on.
The quoted pericopes actually describe a list of frailties and failures which are applicable to any organization comprised of humans, because the list of frailties and failures arise from human nature itself and have been part of humanity’s burden since the Fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Thus if the pericopes ‘Dan’ quoted describe something “perfectly”, it is the weakness of human nature that is thus so “perfectly” described. (And thus, but of course, apply to ‘Dan’ if for no other reason than he shares the frailty constituting “the crooked timber of humanity”.)
IGNORANCE from publiar – Yes, these sins of sexual immorality, impurity, greed and idolatry are the sins of a fallen "human nature". Problem is that they would not be as prevalant as they are among catholic hierarchy, if it truly was God's One True Holy Church. I must say that your cult puts on one fine display of the "crooked timber of humanity", with all it's repetitive pedophilia, perversions, greed, idolatry, cowardice lying and hypocrisy. And this is why these quotes describe your church "perfectly", for it is a false pagan cult and far from anything Godly, so quit trying to defend it's nastiness and filth, with all your lies and excuses. servant of God
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:
Ditto the pericopes in regard to “the deceitful liars” (scream-caps omitted). And here again one might well wonder how those pericopes might not as easily apply to ‘Dan’.
He then tries another run of his ever-necessary I’m Not/You Are bit: when I’ve “got nothing” I refer back to – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttttt? – “mentioning the catholic lies and false accusations” and so forth.
The references to ‘Dan’s preferred narrative about his extensive legal and psychiatric misadventures goes directly to his credibility and his reliability and his capacity to recognize actuality, especially his own. Given his constant insistence that his negative pericopes have only one intended focus (i.e. the Church), then we must take into consideration ‘Dan’s own reliability and accuracy and veracity.
‘Dan’ very much doesn’t want anyone hooking his claims to his reliability. Because to do that would expose the utterly essential scam at the core of his entire shtick: that ‘Dan’s stuff and God’s Word are for all practical purposes one and the same, such that you can’t question ‘Dan’ without – had you been waitttinggggg forrrr itttttttttttttt? – “stupidly mocking God” and so on.
More stupidity from the insistent liar – NO, you are one of "THE DECEITFUL LIARS" (scream-caps included), and it would not "easily apply to 'Dan'. Why is that? Well for the reason that I'm not a LIAR, which seems to be the modus operandi of your cult. Lie, deny, deceive, and do whatever necessary to protect the moral integrity of the corrupt, collapsing, immoral pagan catholic cult.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 15th at 757PM:
Thus ‘Dan’ doesn’t “happen to notice” anything; he absolutely has to deceptively derail by any means necessary anything that would expose the gap between ‘Dan’-stuff and God-stuff.
And the whole thing then riffs on to its conclusion, epithets and so forth.
“Lying coward”? Was it I who – as an adult – verbally accosted school-children behind a fence in a school-yard with rantings? And then created a ridiculous conspiracy narrative (i.e. that ‘Dan’ just happened to be up to his ears in ‘lying Catholics’ and so forth) to excuse his own queasy and repellent words and actions?
Who, actually, is – as ‘Dan’ so helpfully provides the thought – a “worthless creep”? And who most surely “needs their head examined”?
To conclude, the lying coward asks, " 'Lying coward'? Was it I…?" Yes it is You. And as proof he repeats, as he has for the last 2 years, the false accusations that I "verbally accosted school-children behind a fence in a school-yard with rantings." Nothing could be further from the truth, and you know it. All you have ever proven is that you're one fine example of a compulsive liar, from a cult with lying leaders having no problem condemning others in order to present their false church as being the epitome of honesty and moral values. Lying hypocrites destined for Hell's Fire, anti-Christian in every sense of the word and Word. servant of the Almighty
And yes, you are a "worthless" lying "creep".
Not too much in ‘Dan’s most recent crop, and certainly nothing new. But there are a few things:
On the 18th at 844AM he starts off with an epithet. In rationally competent discourse, one might (distastefully but at least in rational sequence) indulge one’s inclination to the epithetical only after having explicated one’s position and assessment and had moved on to one’s conclusions.
But ‘Dan’ is really nothing but a plop-tosser and thus epithetical is a) all he’s really got and b) his habitually ‘natural’ mode of thought and discourse.
And once again, it’s all – cue the pearl-clutching and back-of-hand-to-forehead – Lies, Lies, Lies.
Have I “purjured” myself? One has to be under legally-administered oath to actually commit perjury. But to the cartoonish, plop-tossy mind that would be mere quibbling.
In response to all of publiar's ignorance and nonsense on Sept. 19, 2017 -
Let's start by getting this straight. It is virtually impossible to have "rationally competent discourse" with a compulsive lying catholic hypocrite and mocker and misinterpreter of God's Word. The rest of your repetitive accusations and insults towards myself can go into the round file with the all the rest of your ignorance and stupidity. servant of God
P.S. If I'm a plop-tosser, it's only because you spew way too much plop to toss at, lying peewee.
On then to the 18th at 901AM:
Again, the plop-tossy opener (manipulatively designed to work on the reader emotionally so as to ease his plop’s passage over its contents’ lack of rationality or outright irrationality).
Here ‘Dan’ will (merely) opine and declare that such crimes (not only sexual crime but also “greed and idolatry”) would “not be as prevalent as they are among catholic hierarchy, if it truly was “God’s One True Holy Church”.
First, we are faced with the question as to just how “prevalent” such crimes are among the “hierarchy”. So far we’ve seen vastly more accusations but not anywhere near so many proven instances.
And once again we witness the catholic liar and manipulator making excuses for greedy idolators, but especially for pedophiles and perverts of the cult, many which admitted guilt or were prosecuted and found guilty as charged. Publiar will claim right to your face that the accusations are unproven, knowing that innocent children come forward years later and many disgusting acts of these creeps were done in darkness, with little or no proof. This does not by any means equate to innocence. Many of the creeps raped and molested several young boys and at times even babies. How long will catholics put up with the excuses and blatant lies from these compulsive liars.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Second, we are dealing with the fundie/’Dan’ presumption that faith in Christ leads ineluctably to “purity” of life – and I would note here that “purity” is a totalizing term; like ‘pregnant’ one cannot be just sort-of or partially so. That somehow “faith” (by which humans are saved) leads ineluctably to sinlessness (of which no human is capable).
Paul himself says “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) and the First Letter of John says “If any man says he has no sin then he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (I John 1:8).
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 901AM:
Thus too then the use of the term “perfectly” is also inapplicable here because it too is a totalizing term: there is no modification (such as partially-perfect or sort-of-perfect or somewhat-perfect or mostly-perfect) possible. Except to a cartoonish mind.
And again we see – to the extent that it reflects any sort of rational process at all – the immediately subsequent claim that on that basis (i.e. the basis of all the blather I noted above) that the Church is “false”. As if any indication of a lack of sinlessness constitutes proof of the falseness of the Church.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 917AM:
Another plop-tossy, epithetical and manipulative opening.
But what substantive content do we get? Only that ‘Dan’ is not a “liar” “for the reason” – had you been waittinggg forrrrr itttttt? – that ‘Dan’s says he is not a “liar” (scream-caps omitted). Readers may judge for themselves the reliability of his insistence here.
And also – ‘Dan’ doth further declare – that Catholicism has a “modus operandi” of “lie, deny, deceive” and so on.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 18th at 937AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will yet again repeat his bit that he was not a “coward” by going after the children in that schoolyard and – had you been waittingggg forrr ittttt? – that I “know it”. I a) not only don’t “know” that but b) from everything ‘Dan’ has ever put up about that incident and its consequences it is his own preferred-narrative of that instance and all his other misadventures with law and psychiatry that indicates his consistent lack of veracity, even if it is a necessary lack of veracity driven by his indenture to his delusionality and his delusional system.
And he winds down with another epithetical riff and that God’ll-getcha bit.
"So I declare and testify in the Lord that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; DARKENED IN UNDERSTANDING, alienated from the life of God because of their IGNORANCE, because of their hardness of heart, they have become callous and have handed themselves over to LICENTIOUSNESS for the practice of every kind of IMPURITY TO EXCESS." Ephesians 4:17-19
There’s an interesting bit in ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
He proffers a Pauline pericope that urges Christians to “no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds”.
Taken on its own – thus as a ‘proof text’ – this pericope (in the translation ‘Dan’ uses, anyway) is convenient to his shtick: to live ‘in the mind’ is futile.
Thus for anyone who is either a) not well-equipped in the mind and thinking department or b) rather damaged or deranged in the mind and thinking department then this ‘proof text’ doth ‘prove’ that – to use a favorite fundie phrasing ‘- ‘the Bible says’ you i) don’t need to think or even that ii) you shouldn’t think.
Which neatly gets ‘Dan’ off a number of hooks simultaneously.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
As for the translation of the pericope, the Jerusalem Bible has it thus: “In particular, I want urge you in the name of the Lord, not to go on living the aimless kind of life that pagans live. Intellectually they are in the dark…” (vv. 17-18).
Thus the JB captures the pericope’s actual focus not on some sort of anti-rational or anti-thinking meme (Paul himself, of course, was a remarkably intense and prolific thinker), but rather on the life of ‘aimlessness’ or lack of purpose and meaning which governs the life of a pagan.
This is supported by verse 18: it does not say something to the effect that ‘intellect is darkness’, but rather that ‘intellect can be darkened by aimlessness’ – which is something else altogether.
The JB version – as you can see – does not at all serve ‘Dan’s purposes so well.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
On then to the JB’s translation of verse 19: “Their sense of right and wrong once dulled, they have abandoned themselves to sexuality and eagerly pursue a career of indecency of every kind”.
This verse repeats a consistent Pauline theme, which was also a Jewish theme, about the aimlessness-induced abandonment to sexuality and indecency that must necessarily plague any pagan.
But can you reverse the terms of that thought to say that if one engages in any sexuality or indecency then one must be a pagan … ? To try this gambit would immediately create a contradiction to the pericopes I quoted in a recent comment (from Romans and the First Letter of John; the 19th at 841PM) which point out that nobody is sinless and nobody can lead a sinless life of total and absolute purity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
But this implicit reversal gambit is dear and vital to the fundie and to the ‘Dan’ approach, which does indeed want to presume that: ‘true’ Christians don’t sin (or at least not too much) / Catholics and especially priests sometimes sin / therefore the Church is not “true” and is actually “pagan”.
Yet as the pericopes I quoted indicate: if a sign of “true” Christian-hood is that one doesn’t sin then there can be no “true” Christians at all.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
A typical fundie switcheroo at this point is to fall back on the pericopes of Matthew 19:25-6 and Luke 18:26-7. There, in response to the question posed to Him “Lord, who then can be saved?”, Jesus says “For men, this is impossible; for God, everything is possible” (the JB translation of the Matthean pericope).
The fundies quickly deploy these pericopes as ‘proof texts’ in this manner: “true” Christians cannot lead utterly pure and sinless lives on their own / but if they are “true” then it’s possible for God to enable them to lead sinless lives (once – to use their phrasing – one has ‘accepted Jesus’ and so on).
Thus (and in a delicious irony) the fundie ‘theology’ here would quickly raise all “true” Christians pretty much to the condition of Mary: by the direct action of God, they are rendered without sin (or sorta mostly so; they might still make the occasional ‘mistake’ but that’s OK and doesn’t render them automatically not-true and pagans).
In response to all of your longwinded ignorance and stupidity on Sept. 22, 2017 -
Once again we witness a slew lying accusations, misinterpretations, demeaning insults as to my mental state and more worthless garbage from the habitual lying Accuser. All you have proven is "the futility of [your] mind". Utter ignorance disguised as some form of self-righteous intellegence, not realizing that the only ones he's impressed are the brainwashed sheep of his pagan cult.
Catholics wakeup and be not fooled by the liars of your wicked church. Pay close attention to the smooth tricks of the Son of Satan substituting Mary in the place of Christ our Savior.
Publiar states – "Thus (and in a delicious irony) the fundie 'theology' here would quickly raise all "true" Christians pretty much to the condition of Mary" – The only irony is that Mary was a sinner just like every human being on this earth, excluding of course, Jesus, Son of God. Any "true" Christian would have stated, "to the condition of Jesus", not Mary. Publiar, Son of Satan, slyly substitutes Mary in place of Christ, and furthermore will claim that catholics don't worship her. More lies from the liar extraodinaire, child of the father of all liars (John 8:44).
"for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23
"Therefore Jesus said again, "Very truly I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. ALL who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. I am the gate; whoever comes through me will be saved." John 10:7-9 If Jesus needed His mother to intercede, wouldn't he have mentioned her or other saints. He said, "ALL who came before [Him] are theives and robbers". Didn't His mother come to earth before Jesus? Don't allow these habitual liars to blindfold you and brainwash you with their stupid idolatry. They laugh behind your back as they rob you blind through your generous donations. Greedy hypocrites!!
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
There is, theologically speaking, an escape hatch in the Ephesians pericope: that final phrase of verse 19 “to excess”.
What constitutes “excess”? One might sin, but there is apparently some sort of trip-wire where inevitable human sinning – even by a Christian – becomes “excess” and pagan.
From what we have seen of Paul’s contrast of pagans and Christians, it may well be that the “excess” lies in that ‘aimlessness’ which utterly removes any inhibitions or sense of sin, such that pagans not only sin, but do so with conscience-free and carefree abandon, utterly incapable of seeing how such sin undermines God’s plan for them and for all humans.
Thus the pagans do not see themselves as failing the ‘aims’ of God’s plan, since they do not even conceive of themselves or humanity as being created with such ‘aims’ to begin with. To the pagans, life is just one great big aimless, party-hearty indulgence in fun stuff that they cannot even conceive of as ‘sin’.
Are you speaking in respect to the (a) "excess[ive]", repetitive sins of a compulsive habitual liar, yourself, or (b) of the "excess[ive]", repetitive sins of homosexual pedophilia and perversions of the creeps of your cult? And you have the nerve to believe that you're all just "Christian" sinners and not deceiving pagans. Please, give me a break. Not knowing if you might belong to both categories (a + b), even your cult's teachings display pagan idolatry, greed, unbiblical lies, topped off with one heavy dose of sexual immorality of the worst kind, to an "excess". Lying, idolatrous, perverted, pedophile hypocrites, thinking they belong to the "Christian" saved. Your stuff is a big joke, full of excuses, and definitely pagan, lying ignorance. servant
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 21st at 102PM:
If that be the case, then how does one deal with the conscience-wracked Christian sinner?
Such a person has failed the ‘aims’, but is aware of it. Thus we might well say that for Paul this person is not i) a pagan but rather ii) a Christian-who-has-sinned. And there is a cosmically vast distance between (i) and (ii).
These are the very real complexities which cartoons cannot even begin to handle.
Now comes ‘Dan’ on the 23rd at 1240AM.
He had a problem: how to deal with the actual Scriptural analysis in my comments of the 22nd between 434 and 443PM.
His solution – and had you been waitttingggg forrr itttttt? – is merely a slathering of epithet / topped off by some wordplay on the “futility” meme / from which he then proceeds to address another Urbi et Orbi exhortation to all catholics.
In the process, a reader might note, he has – with typical sly evasiveness – addressed none of the points and issues raised.
Who can be surprised? ‘Dan’ has nothing but his cartoon cards, with the pericope and then a couple of speaking-points attached; once he’s gone through those, he’s got nothing except to try and distract people from the substance with his epithets and further cartoons.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:
But wait. There’s more.
Seeing the point I raised about Mary, he recalls that he has a well-thumbed 3×5 on that topic in his cartoon pile and a long-rehearsed shtick to go along with it.
Apparently – and who at this point can be surprised? – it is necessary for ‘Dan’s cartoon that Catholics presume Mary not to have sinned. But that’s – and who at this point can be surprised? – just a self-serving cartoon to keep ‘Dan’s show on the road.
As Luke relates it (1:47) Mary specifically said “My soul rejoiced in God my savior”. The Catholic point is simply in how God effected the ‘saving’ of Mary: she was given the grace that enabled her to avoid committing an actual sin. While ordinary humans are ‘saved’ by being pulled out of the ditches of sin that they drive into, Mary was given the grace to avoid driving into the ditch in the first place.
Catholics, How long will you continue to listen to the blatant lies of your church and publiar? The dogma of Mary's immaculate conception was presented by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Mary's Assumption dogma was initiated by another Pope Pius XII in 1950. Don't you think if there was truth to either, then they would have been declared and included in the New Testament writings. The church is constantly adding their untruths to the Bible, which in Rev 22:18 is worthy of punishment from plagues from the Almighty.
Mary was not even included among the "saved", when Jesus left her and her brothers outside, while claiming those who do the will of God are truly His mother and brothers (Mark 3:35). Why must you allow these lying hypocrites to fool you and make you believe they have all the answers? They are the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that Jesus warned about.
Notice how publiar claims that when I quote the Word it's "cartoon cards", "well-thumbed 3×5", "cartoon pile" or "proof-texting", as if that makes the quote void. He's been quoting all along with proof-texting and single verses and in his own mind he's under the impression that he has God's wisdom? How do you catholics put up and allow yourselves to be deceived by such an ignorant lying hyopocrite? Are you so used to putting up with the disgusting lies of your cult's hierarchy, that you believe the same ignorance and misinterpretations from this publiar? You shall someday come to know the truth and it will set you free. I hope you're not waiting until Judgment Day to find the truth, for that will be too late!
Misspelled hypocrite, but I think he knows his name.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:
So Mary is human (thus not divine) and she is ‘saved’. The only difference being that the Church considers God to have effected her being saved in a special way, since she was the Mother of Jesus.
What the fundies have gone and done is to presume that while God cannot have done that for Mary (because it’s not ‘in the Bible’, as they do like to say) yet God can and probably (or perhaps inevitably) does much the same thing for “true Christians”, i.e. if you are a “true Christian” they you are preserved from further sin (sorta, or somewhat, or often, or mostly, or always – take your pick).
This tickles ‘Dan’s otherwise patchy pinfeathers, of course, because while clearly challenged in the mental-wellness department, he can consider himself ‘sinless’ (sorta, or somewhat, or often, or mostly, or always – take your pick) since he has declared himself to be a “true Christian”, according to entrance-requirements set by himself and whatever participates from the other side of the bathroom mirror in his séances there. So don’t think of ‘Dan’ as crazy; think of him as ‘sinless’ and a “true Christian” – that’s what he’s going for.
Once again, 'Dan' never claimed to be "sinless" and this is another lying exaggeration from the catholic habitual liar. However 'Dan' is not an unrepentant, lying deceiver, idolator or sick and disgusting pedophile pervert. So truly who is "mentally deranged" and "crazy". Yes, that would be the publiar and all the rest of the deceiving, manipulating, vile "creeps" of your false cult. servant 'Dan'
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:
But wait. There’s more.
Deciding after all to demonstrate his Biblical chops, ‘Dan’ gives us this:
Based on the pericope John 10:7-9, then a) Jesus would not have “needed His mother to intercede for Him”. But Mary doesn’t “intercede for Him” with God; He surely needs no intercession.
Rather, Mary intercedes or mediates between Jesus and humans because many find His majesty and divinity to be somewhat intimidating. Mary’s role serves humans who seek to approach Christ; that role is vital not because of any weakness on Christ’s part but rather because of a weakness on humans’ part.
Once again ‘Dan’s cartoons about Catholicism demonstrate not only a simplistic but also a profoundly inaccurate comprehension of actual Catholic teaching.
publiar oinks, "Mary intercedes or mediates between Jesus and humans because many find His majesty and divinity to be somewhat intimidating."
Did you ever give a thought to the fact that catholics, who refuse to follow the Word and insist on being repetitive unrepentant habitual liars, pedophiles, idolators and hypocrites, would find Jesus to be "intimidating" because they're afraid as Hell of the wrath and vengeance that the Christ and God has promised towards those who refuse to listen to His warnings. No! I bet you never thought about the consequences of your vile sins, because I think your "consciences have been seared as with a hot iron". And wow! There just happens to be a 3X5 pericope and by some strange coincidence it refers to "hypocritical liars" with seared consciences. You catholics might try reading the Bible, instead of listening and believing your false teachers and the lying apologists of your cult.
"Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron." 1 Timothy 4:2
"Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared as with ahot iron." 1 Tim 4:2 (KJV)
And why stop there – "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." 1 Tim 4:3 Catholic rules for fools – Celibate priests and no meat on Friday. Maybe someone should inform your pedophile priests, that they are no longer celibate, but the cult will still let them perform mass. I think I understand the hypocrisy of your cult's teachings much better than you do.
Catholics, Are you going to continue to listen to liars manipulate and twist God's Word to please their own ignorance and stupidity?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 23rd at 1240AM:
And b) that since Mary did “come to earth before Jesus”, then she must be among those “thieves and robbers” referenced in the Johannine pericope.
Thus, apparently, Mary joins every other human being born before Jesus in being a thief and a robber.
Which then – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – leads to another of his favorite 3x5s, i.e. that Mary is taken to be divine by Catholicism. (She is not, except in the ‘Dan’/fundie cartoon-verse.)
Which then – in ‘Dan’s cartoon mentation – leads to another of his favorite 3x5s, i.e. that the Church foments a brain-washed idolatry while “they rob you blind” (thus connecting up with the “thieves and robbers” trope).
This is as pretty a trifecta of manipulative inaccuracies as one is likely to come across.
‘Dan’ – but of course – still has his problem: how to distract from the material he can’t even begin to deal with.
Thus on the 24th at 1251PM tries to reinforce the shaky gambits he’s already tried.
This time he will try to cast his epithetical riffs in the mimicry of intelligent questions (it remains merely a mimicry since the questions seek to manipulatively presume what has hardly been demonstrated).
And yet the queasily repellent and molten violence of his essential disposition bubbles up through the mimicry: “creeps” and that marvelously extended bit (“Lying, idolatrous, perverted pedophile hypocrites” who are “thinking they belong to the ‘Christian’ saved”).
Once again, a) all of this riffing is designed to get people to presume ‘Dan’s normalcy by simply overwhelming them emotionally with his cartoons of priests (as in: compared to these people, ‘Dan’ is reely reely a normal and OK kinda guy … as well as being God’s speshull deputy dawg).
Or he’ll settle – if he has to – for b) ‘Dan’ may be a little gone around the bend, but he’s no sinner like priests are.
And c) ‘Dan’ is to be presumed as the gatekeeper and credentialing-agent of “the Christian saved”. (See, he does have a day-job, and it’s a big one, yes indeedy!)
And how would you prefer that I speak of disgusting vile priests and bishops who take advantage of innocent little boys? "Creeps" that they are, or catholic brothers, who are just about as disgusting as you? The only "cartoon" being played in this forum is your repetitive lying and deceiving ignorance and garbage.
Once again as I've previously pointed out, when publiar has nothing he reverts back to mocking the things of God, His Word and His servant. There will be a high price to pay for all your nonsense and stupidity.
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1251PM:
But the core problem remains, for ‘Dan’ and the fundies: how to distinguish between pagans and Christians-who-commit-sin? And who gets to say so?
The answer – to a reader now familiar with ‘Dan’s stuff – might well be that ‘Dan’ apparently considers himself thus empowered to make the distinction.
One might imagine that ‘Dan’ has thus double-crossed the fundies by arrogating this authority to himself. But really, ‘Dan’ has simply taken the core fundie ‘theology’ to its logical extreme, just as the fundies had taken the core Protestant insight to its logical extreme: any individual can read the Bible (in the most basic sense of that verb), come up with whatever s/he comes up with, and whatever that is that s/he comes up with is what God intends to be the message of the Bible.
And this is where the problem lies. The catholic cult believes they "read the Bible, come up with whatever [they] come up with, and whatever that is [they] come up with is what [the catholic catechism] intends to be the message of the Bible. Deception at it's finest. Lies, deceit and hypocrisy, the modus operandi of one terribly wicked cult. Get away from them, before you go down with them. servant of the Most High
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 24th at 1251PM:
This ‘theology’ is – of course – a ticket for anyone to come up with whatever might best serve his/her purposes, whatever those purposes might be. As we have seen all along with the ‘Dan’ stuff.
And the sly solution to that problem is merely to bleat and bray that whatever that individual has come up with is indeed the very Word and Mind and Will of God because … well, just because. Or – in ‘Dan’s case – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.
And publiar continues to oink and snort his ignorance and stupidity, because the reflection in his dirty toilet tells him to. I bet you can make some fine Kathlik Kool-Aid with your filthy water.
I’ll take ‘Dan’s most recent stuff in the order it appears on the site.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:
Once again, all he’s got are the script-points on his 3x5s, and in regard to Mary he repeats his same old stuff here.
Obsessed with his plop-tossing objective, ‘Dan’ apparently fails to notice that his own point undermines his (inaccurate and dishonest) claims as to Catholicism and Mary’s divinity: by its very wording the dogma of the Immaculate Conception indicates – not to put too fine a point on it – that Mary was ‘conceived’. Humans are conceived, gods are not.
The Assumption – supported in great part by the fact that the early Christian community, even “in the New Testament writings”, never evinced any mention of or concern for Mary’s body in a grave, as there was, say, of Peter’s – simply declares that God brought Mary’s body to heaven rather than allowing it to decompose in a grave. Mary died as a human but was preserved from the decomposition of the grave by God’s direct action (just as the Immaculate Conception preserved the human Mary from sinfulness by a direct action of God). Were her body buried, especially in that corpse-concerned era, the grave would have become a site of deep reverence.
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:
As to the old fundie bit about the Church “adding” to Scripture, the Church draws out what is implied in Scripture, after study of the relevant historical and theological elements.
Thus while there is nothing literally in Scripture about such events as the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, the more relevant point here is that there is nothing in Scripture that would contradict them.
Nor are there any elements in subsequent historical events and theological reflection that would contradict the dogmas.
In contrast to the fundie literalist approach, which simply insists (though not completely, but only when convenient) that there’s only what’s literally in the Bible (ignoring the huge translation and integrity problems of the surviving texts).
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:
And while we’re on the subject (again) readers may recall that neither ‘Dan’ nor the fundie literalism upon which he relies has made any answer even to so simple and clear a problem as when Jesus was born.
As I said in my comment of the 30th of August at 735PM on the immediately preceding thread:
“ … such as Matthew saying (2:1) that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great while Luke (2:1-2) says that Jesus was born during the governorship of Quirinius, who became governor after Herod’s death and whose putative first census took place almost 10 years after Herod’s death; nor – contra Luke – is there any historical evidence of any world-wide census ordered during the reign of Augustus, for which, in any case, there would be no rational requirement for persons to have to register in their ancestral towns rather than their present places of residence.”
Which is it?
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:
Further demonstrating the acrobatic flim-flams to which fundie (and ‘Dan’) literalism is reduced, he then tries to float the claim that since (in Mark 3:35) Mary and His family had come and were outside the building in which He was speaking, and Jesus used the family trope as an opportunity to make a point about who are His family (i.e. that anyone who “does the will of God” is His family) … then therefore – declare ‘Dan’ and the fundies – Jesus actually excluded Mary and His own family from the ranks of “the saved”.
But the text doesn’t in any way support such a conclusion:
Jesus didn’t deny that Mary was part of His family (the “saved” bit is purely a ‘Dan’/fundie addition); in fact He didn’t exclude Mary as part of His family but rather extended the concept of ‘family’ to include anyone who did the will of God.
Jesus thus drives home the idea that with God as His Father, then anyone who does the Father’s will is a family member; membership in Jesus’ “family” is based not on blood-ties but on doing God’s will.
Nor is it in any way conceivable that Jesus here is denying that Mary is His mother; which would have been impossible in the first place since He was widely recognized as the son of Mary.
And is ‘Dan’- on the basis of this pericope of Mark’s – implying that Mary is not in any way Jesus’ mother? That He denied her maternal relationship to Him?
Continuing with ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 446AM:
And – yet again – ‘Dan’ tries the old sly deception to the effect that when I point out the problems with ‘Dan’s own stuff I am actually going after the Bible itself. Again, I am going after ‘Dan’s claims and interpretations of the Bible material, not after the Bible material itself.
But this bit of ‘Dan’s is vitally necessary for his entire scam: hiding his own stuff behind the Scriptural quotes, he has to confuse and conflate his own stuff with the actual Scriptural material, in order to protect his whacko stuff from an examination it cannot in any way withstand.
And from that bit also flows the necessity of clothing in the authority of Scripture not only ‘Dan’s material but ‘Dan’s own masquerade as God’s speshull deputy dawg.
‘Dan’s “truth” will not set anyone free; it will simply entice them into his own delusional swamp-world.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1106AM:
Going over again some points I made in prior comments on this thread: if ‘Dan’ is not sinless, then he has sinned, and if one sins, then does that not – according to ‘Dan’s theory – make ‘Dan’ a pagan? Or at least not a “true” Christian?
Or can a Christian sin and yet not become a pagan but rather become a Christian-who-has-sinned?
Which is it? It can’t be both.
And if ‘Dan’ wants to claim that – ummmmmmmmmm – some sins don’t make you a pagan and some do, or that some sins don’t erase one’s status as a “true” Christian and some do erase that status … then how does one go about accurately and authoritatively determining which sins are which?
A while back he apparently tried to go for the claim that once you are a “true” Christian then God’s/Christ’s grace will prevent you from any further sin. Is that bit still – to use an old Nixon-era term – “operative”?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 1106AM:
While he doesn’t dare tackle these profoundly problematic issues directly, we apparently get ‘Dan’s position from his subsequent stuff in the comment:
The sins that trip the wire just happen to be – had you been waitttinggggggg forrrrrrr ittttttttttt? – the ones of which ‘Dan’ accuses the Church and Catholics.
And how does ‘Dan’ have the knowledge and authority to make those presumptions? Why, his bathroom mirror and his delusional system tell him so.
He doesn’t dare say that directly. Instead he quickly tries to evade with his epithetical riff that concludes the comment.
And again we see demonstrated here a gambit I have already noted in prior comments: don’t think of ‘Dan’ as “mentally deranged” and “crazy”; think of him as not being “unrepentant” and a “lying deceiver” or “sick and disgusting” and a “pedophile pervert”.
I’d see him as clearly being all those things – except “pedophile pervert”, for which the indications remain merely circumstantial and inferential at this point.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 238AM:
Once again, I will repeat points that came up when this topic came up a while back:
‘Dan’ tries to resolve the human-fear-of-Christ this way: “Catholics” (not all humans, just Catholics) are afraid of Christ’s presence because they are such vile sinners and that’s why they pretty much invented Mary’s role.
The psychology of going to Mom if you’ve done something wrong rather than facing Dad directly is universal, and it is based in a profound human dependence on the maternal. Mary, the Church says, is thus a part of God’s plan; humans by their very psychological make-up are more comfortable with the maternal presence than with the more judgmental presence of the paternal, especially if they’ve gone and screwed something up.
An alternative solution, of course, would be to consider yourself so speshully-authorized by God that you need have no fear of God’s judgmental presence. Which would be especially so if you have designated as ‘god’ some thoroughly-supportive things you see in the séances you conduct in your bathroom mirror that substitute for church services and such.
But for the reality-based community, sin and judgment are very real and can’t be waved-away with delusional cartoon fantasies.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 250AM:
Nobody here defends any sin. There remains – clearly – the question of just how much of that particular type of sin actually exists in the Church and from what we have seen on this site such sins are not as demonstrably rampant as ‘Dan’ and others in the world would like.
Cutting through the manipulative vivid stuff, let’s get to the core of it: how does Christianity handle Christians-who-have-sinned … ? With the exception of the (rather rare) sin of deliberately denying the Holy Spirit when you know deep in your soul that the Spirit exists and is calling upon you and you willfully wish to deny the Spirit, then what does Christianity do with any Christian-who-has-sinned? What, for that matter, does God do or want done with such persons (among whom we are all numbered)?
Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 250AM:
‘Dan’s self-serving solution is to pick a sin or bunch of sins / claim he doesn’t commit them and is therefore (sort of) “pure” and “true” / and then happily toss plop at those he claims to have committed those sins.
Thus, of course, why should he focus himself on being gone-around-the-bend when he’s on a mission from God (or his bathroom mirror) to denounce those sins? And how could anyone dare to think about his being gone-around-the-bend when he’s on such a mission? Neato.
On then to ‘Dan’s of the 27th at 304AM:
Here ‘Dan’ will try the old I’m Not/You Are bit: it’s not ‘Dan’ who comes up with whatever he comes up with by reading the Bible (whatever version of it) and straining it through the colander of his own delusions. Noooooo – it’s them Kathliks that do that (and it’s all – had you been waitttinggg forrr itttt? – “lies” and “deceit” and so on).
Two millennia of Christian and Catholic study and reflection and contemplation of the vast and vastly-complicated Bible are – for the purposes of ‘Dan’s cartoon here – the same thing as ‘Dan’ conducting his séances in his bathroom under the mirror. Except – you can take ‘Dan’s word for it – ‘Dan’ gets it all right and the two millennia of study and reflection and contemplation are just doo-doo.
Readers may judge as they will.
See? they've done it again Hijacked the conversation, Covered up any real issue. All to set you up again. My god if there is a real readership here, how could they be so stupid as not to see the set up? Ken W sees the set up.