The Vatican appears in need of a serious media consultant. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, has issued a defense that boils down to insisting that implicated priests were not pedophiles but homosexuals who liked young boys — and besides no more than five percent of priests had sex with children . . . and Jews and Protestants do it more.
Tomasi made his confrontational statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, insisting only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. Tomasi seems to think that the faithful can rest assured that the likelihood that the priest will sexually assault your child is only 5 out of every 100 priests. Those are odds that are viewed as more than adequate in Vegas.
He also insisted that it is more likely that your child will be abused by Protestant or Jewish religious leaders — making the Catholic Church a virtual safe zone if you are going on purely the average likelihood of a rape. That could lead to a new campaign: “Go Catholic: We are Statistically Less Likely to Rape Your Child.”
Besides, Tomasi insisted “[o]f all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” He insisted most of the accused priests are homosexuals who simply liked younger partners.
The angry response came after Keith Porteous Wood of the International Humanist and Ethical Union accused the Church of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children’s organizations must unite to pressure the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities.”
For the full story, click here.
Doesn’t that make you feel warm and fuzzy at night. I guess when you are that 1% failure risk of Birth Control it is just not that effective.
I guess this gives new meaning to the “Half-Nelson, Full-Nelson and Father Nelson” Where Father Nelson in Fully Engaged.
JT,
Saw this on the news this morning: Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down…
The Texas Attorney General has intervened and will appeal. It seems to me that the Privilege and Immunity Clause, Comity and Respect for Foreign Domestic Relation Order and the silent Right to Marry. I believe arose out of Article 9 in the Loving Case and a whole host of other cases providing the impetus to change the law. Brandeis and Blackmun, both while serving at different times were great jurist. Was that not the Fundamental right to privacy that Scalia thwarts so easily?
link: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/10/01/gay-marriage-ban-struck-down
TOLERATION, APPROVAL, AND THE RIGHT
TO MARRY: ON CONSTITUTIONAL
LIMITATIONS AND PREFERENTIAL
TREATMENT
http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v35-issue1/strasser.pdf
I am straight and same sex unions do not bother me.
Oh well, then, Mr. Archbishop, if it’s only 5%, heck, that’s okay then.
So the Vatican admits that it has 20,000 molesters on the payroll?
Priests have extensive and trusted access to children. Some have said the average priest abuser molests 250 kids over their career, although only a fraction of those come forward or are made public. Assuming it’s only 50 victims per abuser, that’s 1,000,000 victims worldwide.
This is a familiar sidestep of an issue, that has become all to common these days. The problem the RCC is being challenged on is the protection of these pedophile Priests and the cover up to minimize spiritual and monetary damage. Pedophiles flocked to the Priesthood, for the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The RCC couldn’t adequately screen out these pedophiles, but it could have rooted them out and expelled them once their proclivities were exposed.
“It’s not our fault! They did it too! WORSE than we did!”
Could the response have been any more juvenile?
But a juvenile response is just exactly in line the sexual predilections of the criminal priests in question.
Way to go, Pope. Even Jesus would say, “That couldn’t have been a more blatant attempt to deny legal responsibility by pointing fingers. Pedophilia is against the rules PERIOD. I should have told Dad to make the 11the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not cover thine ass.’ He kept saying you bunch of stupid monkeys would be leaving your donkeys out of the barn to freeze to death in winter if he went with that wording and I see He was right. Now, for playing your vile game of Hide the Pedophile, I shall rain frogs upon the ‘Holy’ See. Tell the Cardinals to take umbrellas.”
The only difference being He would have said it Aramaic.
Maybe I’ll start going back to the church then. I didn’t realize the the rate was only 5%. That makes it all ok. Maybe Polanski can use this logic in his defense: “It was only one little girl among hundreds that I could have raped and abused, so you see it’s not as bad as people make it seem”.
With a sampling margin of error rate of 3%, this could be only 2% of the clergy. In statistics, 2% is actually vero, so the situation doesn’t actually exist, right? Right?
This is just one of a number of the reasons why I’ve been an EX-Catholic for a few decades. Twelve torturous years spent in parochial school in the 1950s and and 1960s is another reason.
Catholics–we’re proud to be 20,000 child rapists strong! Maybe that should be the inspirational cheer before every football game?
Once the Church stops ordaining “homosexuals”, much of this problem will be ameliorated. Visit a seminary or religious community, it will make your head spin.
Many bishops don’t want to admit that “active homosexual” men are a problem because “they” themselves are homosexuals! The proclivity toward this behavior is obvious during the discernment process for men seeking acceptance into religious life or the ministerial priesthood. Notice that the majority(over 90%) of the molestation cases are committed against underage boys. I am a Catholic and I am repulsed and sickened by this ongoing problem within my Church.
Billy,
By far the vast majority homosexuals are attracted to adult members of the same sex. I’ll let others elaborate on just how wrong your statement is.
A MUCH more effective change in policy would be for the Catholic church to stop putting known child abusers in positions where they can abuse children.
Sadly Gyges, these known child-abusers are known homosexuals..
The Church should never have ordained these homosexuals in the first place.
I agree Gyges, once these priests turn “rotten”, they should be “out”! Period! How do you think this problem can be ameliorated before it even starts?
Thats’ why I love this “think tank”. Divergent thinking is the order of the day.
Billy,
No, by definition they’re known pedophiles. Attraction to a child of either gender is not the same as attraction to an adult of the same gender.
billy,
Gay people are attracted to other people of the same sex. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. There is a difference. In fact, many pedophiles are attracted to children of the opposite sex.
I wish the Catholic Church would consider allowing priests to marry and ordaining women priests. Maybe then there would be fewer pedophiles among their ranks.
I have many celibate friends Elaine, they are not married, maybe they never will be. They are celibate by choice and still have know interest in underage children. I have heard this argument it is not very strong. Their is no “statistical correlation” that “celibacy” leads to “pedophilia”. I would love to see the data and empirical proof to substantiate this position. You will be looking in vain..
The reason priests molest underage boys is simple, they are homosexual in orientaion.
billy,
By that “logic”, all homosexuals are pedophiles. That is a manifest lie and the very portrait of bigotry.
I never said “all” homosexuals are pedophiles buddha, only the ones who molest underage boys. Not only are they homosexual in orientation but pedophiles if they commit the act of pedophilia.
Biology rules us all, my High School instructor Harry Harrison taught. Since we reap what we sow my guess is abstinence goes against our very biology.
Catholics have never taught or equipped priests, nuns and sisters to manage their creative sexual energies. They do teach reconciliation, but the statement released by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi is devoid of it. What can the RCC further reap from their institutional human rights abuses?
A portrait of bigotry is how “you” feel toward the Catholic Church. You hold a “prejudice” against the Catholic Church, I have read your posts. I have yet to hear a single positive thing about the Catholic Church, in any of them. Why? Maybe because you are a bigot.
You didn’t say it directly, but that was indeed the logically consistent transformation of your words as presented. There are plenty of Priests who have molested little girls too. The male/female dynamic is irrelevant when discussing the mental disorder pedophilia. Age is the issue and only age is the issue in that behavior.
Precision is your friend in language as in anything else.
The vast majority of priests’ and religious I have met and known in my life, are for the most part virtuous people, struggling to live a countercultural lifestyle by embracing the Gospel message. You may find know value in this it, but “they” and “others” do.
Statistically, the number of underage girls in comparison to underage boys is less than 5%. Check it out. Anyone who is molested is a victim “boy or girl”. But statistics and empirical data “supercede” clever statements and being verbose. The data is readily available..
I do enjoy “watching and reading” the workings of your clever mind buddha, you help me to think and stay sharp..
You cite anecdotal evidence as proof. Never a good strategy. If you want to get into a battle over the epidemiology of pedophilia, you will loose this battle. The issues isn’t even pedophiles proper. Just because you know some good priests in no way excuses the bad ones. The issues is the great lengths that the RCC has gone to to avoid prosecution of the criminals in their midst and avoid civil liability for crimes committed under their banner. There is simply no way to justify the game of hide the pedophile the RCC has consistently played over the last 40 years to avoid legal liability for their members CRIMES. These aren’t victim-less crimes either. The RCC is an aider and abettor after the fact.
Statistically speaking, it would be “inconceivable” to have this disproportionate amount of pedophiles in one given demographic, i.e. the Catholic Church. The only logical and reasonable explanation for the disproportionate amount of “male on male” molestation in the priesthood, would be to analyze the sexual orientaion of the perpetrator. As ten dimes buys a dollar, he will be a homosexual.
Pedophilia is a form of “sexual paraphilia”, if a homosexual man perpetrates the act, he is not only homosexual in orientaion but a pedophile as well. Because a man is homosexual in orientaion does not exclude him from committing acts of pedophilia. I think you feel that homosexuality exonerates you from this crime. Am I correct in my assumption?
billy,
I never said that celibacy leads to pedophilia. I made no such argument. You’re inferring that from the comments I made and drawing an incorrect conclusion. I honestly feel that if the Catholic Church allowed priests to marry and women to be ordained–maybe, just maybe–there would be more people interested in becoming Catholic priests. Maybe the culture of the priesthood would change–for the better.
You know what Elaine “maybe-just maybe”, you are onto something..
Would those who feel like bashing the catholic church please state which one you are bashing? You have about 45 different brands of the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church is the one being spoke of here. There is the Greek Catholic, South American, etc. They do not pay allegiance to
The Catholic Church is just trying to change the subject.
The real issue here is the lengths the church goes to in order to cover up these abuses. Scores of child rapists masquerading as moral leaders were moved by the church so that they could rape again and again. The criminals running this organization used the full power of their institution to continue these crimes and prevent local prosecutions.
The Catholic Church should be federally prosecuted under RICO and disbanded as a criminal organization.
That the RCC would stoop to this type of “and so are you-but worse than me,” argument tells me all I need to know about culpability here. Imagine actually saying that in a profession supposedly anointed by the deity as a calling from heaven, about 20,000 were violent felons of the worst order. Makes you wonder about some of the other things they tell us.
puzzling:
Yeah, I thought RICO should be applied too! But the RCC’s racketeering activity doesn’t seem to fit the RICO law.
Maybe obstruction of justice? More inventive folks than I would know. Would they comment too.
billy,
At 12:08pm you wrote “Once the Catholic Church stops ordaining “homosexuals”, much of this problem will be ameliorated.”
The Catholic Church only requires it’s priests to be male and celibate it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Using your suggestion the acute shortage of priests will only be exacerbated. I agree with Elaine M.’s suggestion above and nice to see you did not reject it.
I hope you can retain the distinction between homosexual and pedophilia in your future arguments.
I believe the Catholic Church will and should continue to lose members until it has a full investigation, prosecution and proper restitution to all victims of this global criminal enterprise. Remember Catholic priest’s vow poverty along with chastity.
Everyone knows that homosexuals are “notorious” when it comes to fidelity. This is why the abuses continue in perpetuity..
My bad, I meant “infidelity”…
First off, let’s point out that the original statement of “we don’t molest children that much,” is a distraction. We need to simultaneously focus on the decisions that were made to both cover up the many cases of molestation and to move pedophile priests from one position to another where they could continue to harm children. Separate from the question of “are there disproportionately more child molesters in the priesthood” is the apparent fact that the church conspired to hide and allow further molestation. That is a very serious problem, and there is little evidence that the leadership understands it as such.
As annoying as this “billy” person is, it’s useful that he/she is posting here. You’re getting a decent illustration of the underlying cultural problems with a large part of Catholic culture (at least as I’m familiar with it in US culture.) His/her basic point is that “homosexuality” per say is the problem. That’s a widespread belief, and it ties into my above point – it’s a nice distraction from recognizing and fixing problems with the church’s leadership. It also has some nice circular reasoning – sure, we’re homophobic, but homosexuals do bad things, so we’re justified in our biases!
Here’s my theory about the apparent disproportionate appeal of the priesthood to people who are both homosexual and pedophilic. (But, who knows? Maybe the vatican is right, and Lutherans are waaaay more into child molesting.) Some starting points: There is a high correlation between strong Catholic belief/culture and homophobia. Priests are disproportionally drawn from people with strong Catholic belief/culture. Homosexual orientation is spontaneous and is a trait in some fairly consistent portion of the human population.
From here we see that some proportion of very Catholic boys will be gay. Imagine growing up gay in a deeply homophobic culture – how do you develop to have a mature, adult sexuality, when you can’t date, and are told that your feelings of love are sinful and shameful? Of course, you can’t – you don’t learn how to have a sexual/interpersonal relationship with your peers, and you’ve got a huge load of self-loathing, particularly about your sexuality. You are presented with the opportunity to enter a lifestyle that is supposedly “celibate”, which would seem to make your sexuality a non-issue. You, perhaps, imagine that a life devoted to God would go some way to alleviating you of your “sinful urges.” Not being a seminarian or priest, I really don’t know what the reality is of “celibacy” in these groups, so I’ll leave that issue alone.
The end result of this process is that you have men who have great self-loathing, who have never developed mature, adult sexuality in positions of exceptional authority, particularly power over children with parents who view your interest in their children as wonderful. (hmmm. reminds me of the situations with Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski…) In creating this dynamic, are we supposed to be surprised that these sexually messed up guys with power over children take advantage of the situation?
“Ah ah!” Folks like “billy” will say, “See! Just exclude the homosexuals!” Uh, maybe – except who would implement that purge? The current priesthood? Really?
The “progressive” solution would be to tone down the homophobia and improve the culture’s approach to sexuality in general. (Lot’s of Catholics reading this are chortling reading such a preposterous proposal…) It seems the Catholic church has quite a quandary.
Tom Arch(?), I suggest you take a tour, or better still make a weekenf retreat to alocal seminary or house of monastic studies. spend time with the seminarians, “you’ll sing different tune, either that or you are in “stone cold” denial.
CEJ,
Remember Catholic priest’s vow poverty along with chastity.
********************
The part with respect to the celebrate portion, this is only true of the RCC. The part where poverty is stated, not rue. It depends on the Order, some yes, some no.
AY, only Catholic priests who are in a monastic order or religious community take vows of “poverty”. Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty. Just thought you would like to know..
Homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood because they are hiding in the “closet” of the Church..
billy:
“Once the Church stops ordaining “homosexuals”, much of this problem will be ameliorated. Visit a seminary or religious community, it will make your head spin.”
there is a good deal of literature out there on this subject. it appears that child abusers are in a class of there own, they don’t care if the children are male or female, age is what attracts them. the fact that some priests pray on young boys is probably more a function of proximity than anything else.
Most gays that I know are interested in adults and would bite their arm off rather than harm a child. Granted I only know a small sample so this is no scientific study. But my guess would be that the incidence of child molesters among gays and straights is probably roughly similar, in other words within an appropriate statistical deviation for any randomly sampled population.
please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
billy,
AY, only Catholic priests who are in a monastic order or religious community take vows of “poverty”. Diocesan priests do not take a vow of poverty. Just thought you would like to know..
This is an incorrect assumption and statement of monastic order, community and diocesan priest. I do not know where you are grasping these statements from.
billy 1, October 2, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood because they are hiding in the “closet” of the Church..
Golly Geeze billy, maybe Hitler should be alive to deter them as well.
Tom, the “homosexual bishops” needs to stop being “installed” as bishops, and then we would have fewer ordinations of gay priests. These gay bishops are the major problem behind the ordination of gay/pedophile priests in the church. It is like an “old boy”, homosexual network, these homosexual bishops should be laicized immediately! They like and/or feel sorry for these pathetic souls. They have been a “cancer” in the church for years ans have ushered in all kinds of abuses. The “truth”is right under your nose Tom..
AY, read my post, diocesan priests “do not” take a vow of poverty. A “religious” priest, one who is in a religious community “does”, i.e. the Franciscans, the Augustinians the Carmelites..
billy,
After reading the above I am laughing so hard that I have this question to ask:
Do you wake up stupid or does that occur am naturally throughout the day?
In fact, a diocesan priest does not take “vows”, they take “promises”.
Your “caustic wit” is only exceeded by your “ignorance” AY..
billy,
Do all Catholic priests take a vow of poverty?
No, they do not. Priests who are members of religious communities (and lay men and women who belong to such communities) make vows to God of poverty, chastity and obedience. However, the diocesan clergy (the usual parish priests and other priests who belong to a diocese rather than to a religious order) may own, inherit, invest and control their own possessions and are responsible for their own insurance, taxes, etc. Diocesan priests at their ordination make solemn promises of chaste celibacy for the love of God and of obedience to their Bishop. They are also bound, by their state in life, to live simply and frugally, but they have no vow of poverty. The vow of poverty made by religious (both clerics and lay) does not oblige them to live in destitution and penury, but means they give up, for the love of God, the right to private property, which is owned in common by the religious order or community to which they belong. Unless diocesan priests were to receive some family money inheritance, they normally have very little by way of personal possessions, except per haps their cars, which they usually need for their pastoral work. If diocesan priests, given their education and talents, had worldly careers, they would undoubtedly be financially rich. However, they cheerfully live on little income and often even give much of that away to the poor.
“Clever girl” AY, you frantically gleaned some data off the internet to hurriedly hide your ignorance before your peers. You work quick..
AY, The information you “posted” was “obviously pulled” from wikkipedia or some other search engine. Your “farce” is plane to see.. You cover your tracks well…
billy,
No matter how much you try and charm me with your wit you must admit this is a classically stupid logic and a statement ass hole:
billy 1, October 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Tom, the “homosexual bishops” needs to stop being “installed” as bishops, and then we would have fewer ordinations of gay priests. These gay bishops are the major problem behind the ordination of gay/pedophile priests in the church. It is like an “old boy”, homosexual network, these homosexual bishops should be laicized immediately! They like and/or feel sorry for these pathetic souls. They have been a “cancer” in the church for years ans have ushered in all kinds of abuses. The “truth”is right under your nose Tom..
Cum on you know hat I mean.
They wil be serving “snow-cones” in hell before a “simpleton” like you AY, gets the drop on me…
Correction to billy,
No matter how much you try and charm me with your wit you must admit this is a classically stupid logic and a statement [should read] as a whole not (ass hole):
billy 1, October 2, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Tom, the “homosexual bishops” needs to stop being “installed” as bishops, and then we would have fewer ordinations of gay priests. These gay bishops are the major problem behind the ordination of gay/pedophile priests in the church. It is like an “old boy”, homosexual network, these homosexual bishops should be laicized immediately! They like and/or feel sorry for these pathetic souls. They have been a “cancer” in the church for years ans have ushered in all kinds of abuses. The “truth”is right under your nose Tom..
Should read: Come on you know what I mean not (Cum on you know hat I mean).
Ay, based upon your caustic wit and potty mouth, you appear to be “morphing” into your buddy, buddha..
Billy,
Really, someone using an outside source is a bad thing? Now if it’s a direct quote, he should cite where it’s from, but in general, around here we call that “providing evidence to support our claims.”
billy 1, October 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm
They wil be serving “snow-cones” in hell before a “simpleton” like you AY, gets the drop on me…
Top it lil billie, you slay me with your wit, you are so smart. ohh ohh.
hey buddha, where is he?
AY, all you did was amplify my prior posts, based upon what you hurriedly gleaned from the internet. Give it up!
Prior to “plagiarizing” this information for yourself AY, I already illustrated this point. Prior to you “rifling” through a search engine, these were “intelligences” that were unknown to you, but already known by me…
billy,
when did you take your vows?
billy,
surely you jest? these were only known bi you?
I never did, how bout yourself…
AY, Billy,
In the spirit of civility: please either start playing nice or shut up.
This is as far from the standard of intelligent and civil discussion we that comment here try and hold ourselves to as you can get.
All you are doing is sticking your tongues out at each other and saying “neener neener neener.” It’s an annoyance to others, a waste of your time, and against our host’s often expressed wishes.
Sorry Gyges, I was just toying….toiling, tooling, lubing, probing.
Gyges, your “hypervigilant” attorney friend AY, “flares” up like a little tartar. She resorts to serious name calling and the use of profanity, at the drop of a hat! I assume she is intelligent and can articulate herself in a mature and professional manner. If she can’t she should be placed on “probation” if nothing else…
AY, you “need something”, to cool the fever in your blood..
billy,
Gyges, your “hypervigilant” attorney friend AY, “flares” up like a little tartar. She resorts to serious name calling and the use of profanity, at the drop of a hat! I assume she is intelligent and can articulate herself in a mature and professional manner. If she can’t she should be placed on “probation” if nothing else…
billy,
AY, you “need something”, to cool the fever in your blood..
********************
Oh, baby, you excite me with your manly man words. Your verbosity excites me like no other, roooar…..
When Billy gets let out of his cage, he can very ably defend himself. GRRRRROOOOOOOOWL!!!!!
AY, no hard feelins’ we’re just postin’ readin” and havin’ fun.
AY,
Thank-you you were right to correct me; not all orders require the vow of poverty. Although the RCC does want all the clergy to follow a simple way of life. (Cannon 282)
I was just expressing my cynicism as I believe a lot of the RCC obstruction and denial is not merely about refusal to admit the truth/harm of what they have done to so many, but also stems from their unwillingness to compensate all the victims with monetary awards. They also desire to hold on to the money making members of the machine (even a bad priest can still generate a lot of dough). Hence their MO: deny, discredit and attack their accusers (this is especially heinous), delay, stall, minimize any admissions of guilt, and settle out of court only when absolutely necessary.
All the while knowing the charges were true and the perpetrators were on to the next victims. Truly despicable!
CEJ, does the word “bigot”, strike a chord with you?
CEJ,
Thank you. And if memory serves me correctly, there were 2 houses or places of rehabilitation that the repentant priest was to go. One of them was in Arizona and the second in New Jersey.
The one that got to me was the priest that got into a whole lot of trouble and they change the name of the priest and then placed them back out in active service.
Some of them were to serve the rest of there lives in communion with nature as opposed to active roles in the priesthood.
You bring up the money, that is standard operating procedure. If you are not aware the RCC controls the European Commodity Market. The Church’s possession have no value. I kid you not and the Bishops that put the Diocese into the black make cardinals.
It is the money makers that raise through the ranks. Oh you said that. Sorry.
Buddha is my ass- master? Your “shameless” suck-up to buddha is embarrasing AY, get ahold of yourself..
billy,
Buddha is my ass- master?
I am glad you agree.
**********************
Your “shameless” suck-up to buddha is embarrasing AY,
Oh no Ay, not get embarrassed very easy, you?
********************
get ahold of yourself..
I did and its hard to type on keyboard….
I have not mastered this feat yet, you?
I think you are buddha…
I think you use a number of sobriquets…
billy,
oh no I not buddha, you?
This debate has gone on before. I interject no science fiction shit in nothing. Don’t understand it well enough. I guess when you live it on a day to day basis, its kinda of hard to see whats real and whats fake. You know what I mean?
The person I was talking about said the same thing and for some reason or another we posted on the same day and same time. If you are not aware WordPress will make you wait 45 seconds to one minute to post again.
When buddha “disappears”, you appear, how convenient. You even use the same “pressured” writing style. The same caustic, condescending tone. Uh-oh discovered……..
Yeah, I guess you’re right. he’s a whole lot smarter than you..
billy,
you are so correct. How did billy my hero get so smart?
Folks I had to delete a couple of entries in this thread. Please remember our civility rule and end the personal stuff. To use an English term, “it is fouling the footpath.”
Billy,
I’m not going to apologize, if my opinion offends you too bad.
Although I suppose if you are the same billy, who last evening on the “Did Texas kill an innocent man thread?”, who felt his interpretation of RCC dogma should hold more sway than the late Pope John Paul II does I’m not surprised you would take offense.
Sorry JT, if I have been out of order, I apologize. I assume I have been playing by the rules..
CCD,
I saw this article written by Marci Hamilton that called for RICO prosecution of the RCC.
“Imagine a large, wealthy, and hierarchical organization that persists in believing it is above the law. Over many decades, the organization has employed a tradition of blood brother secrecy to keep its illegal actions from being analyzed or criticized in the press, or prosecuted and punished by legal authorities. It employs powerful, adept, and highly-paid lawyers, and resists judicial process whenever it can.
Meanwhile, the organization’s leaders are united in a secret bond that requires them to do whatever it takes to protect the organization from scandal. For them, the cover-up of serious crimes is a way of life, a feature of their everyday business.”
“RICO has not only been used against the mafia; it has also been used to target apparently legitimate organizations, such as corrupt labor unions, as well. It is now time to use it against the Catholic Church.”
OT:
I hadn’t been aware that the particular regular in question had been banned (at least for a month). I went back and found the topic in which it happened, and I thought I’d quote the Prof:
“This blog is not simply an effort to maintain civil discourse. It is also a blog that I use for my students to explore different legal questions and to have a bit of fun with the law by exploring the more bizarre and unexpected cases and issues. I try mightily to show that as lawyers we can discuss such issues with mutual respect and, most importantly, civility. in light of Rep. Wilson’s recent example of the loss of such civility in our society, I feel even stronger about maintaining a place on the web where adults can have reasoned (while passionate) debate.”
This is why this is a unique place, and I’d hate for that to change because some of us don’t know how the “backspace” key works.
Byron, “most homosexuals would bite off their arm before harming a child”, I agree. The demographic I have isolated are those gay priests in the Church, who prey on young boys, not girls. The homosexuals you are referring to are not in the church, functioning as priests or in some area of the ministerial priesthood. Your set of statistics and data is reflective of the entire population. My set of statistics are overwhelming, in fact, quite staggering. If you were to look at the statistics of pedophilia, within the church, you will find that it is “impossible”, in fact nearly inconceivable to have this “disproportionate” number of active pedohiles residing, “all at once” in the “demographic” of the church. And applying almost 100% to those in the priesthood, with over 95% of the molestaion taking place with boys! My indictment is not against gays, who have consensual affairs in the community with adults, my demographic is only concerned with the homosexuals who are molesting boys in the church. I am not saying, “if you read my posts”, that homosexuals have a proclivity toward pedophilia, not so. My contention is that homosexual priests’ in the church, given the opportunity, have a “proven” proclivity to molest underage boys, almost exclusively. The statistics are irrefutable..
Gyges,
There is a lady in Euclid, Oh named Dorothy Richardson that needs someone to sit in her flower garden. Don’t worry the shovel is only used for flies. The neighbors might have a different recollection but don’t worry, she wants you to watch for the bunnies.
Ok.
That’s why I stopped. Thanks, was my date frame correct?
The overflow numbers of ordained homosexual priests is staggering
AY,
I appreciate that, you were dead on date-wise although the article was from earlier.
I think JT should be proud of the kind of people he attracts to his blog. It was at least a year in before he had to ban anybody, and I can count the total number of people banned on one hand. I agree with all of them, except the one who he’s since let back in.
Sure we get the occasional troll or nut, but they leave fairly quickly.
billy,
Or more properly, Wayne, since that is who YOU really are, let’s get something straight here.
You asked for a truce with me and you got one, but if you keep acting like you have on this thread? Then you better put your Pope back in your pants with your Bishop and not use my name when you want to act like a petulant child. You want to get into a pissing match with AY? Knock yourself out. He can defend himself. However, you should leave me out of it. If for no other reason than it’s impolite, the simple fact is you think YOU can bite, Tiger.
Everyone here knows I can. In giant T-Rex size chunks.
I gave you a truce once. I did so knowing full well who you are. I did so because 1) you asked nicely, 2) you were showing you were capable of rational argument on a limited scale although you are still riddled with classical errors and 3) you showed the barest hint of breaching the understanding that belief and an organization protecting criminals are not the same thing.
Seems like that was a bullshit act on your part based on your performance here today though doesn’t it, Mr. Apologist?
I do give people chances to correct past bad actions. I do not, however, give them unlimited chances. If I get off the pine, I’m unlikely to give you a second truce.
I am capable of ridiculing you and the RCC all day long in a manner that won’t ever get deleted and be every bit as caustic and funny as the really offensive material. Try me. Oh, that’s right. You already have and asked for a truce. Think about that next time you want to play nanny nanny boo boo using my name.
I read your position on this matter buddha, and I have provided my data accordingly. I am so “terrified” of you buddha, I think I will now crawl into a hole and then pull the hole in with me. Your cleverly contrived use of the English language is a dreadful and terrifying thing for me to behold. I guess this guy Wayne(?), must have really burned an “indelible” impression in your head. Your dread fear and paranoia of him is showing, constantly..
Oh yeah, Go royals!
I have been busy for several days and have only now had the time to read this thread. As some of you know, I was raised a Catholic, taught by Franciscans in grammar school and by Jesuits in high school. I also spent some time in the Jesuit novitiate in Grand Coteau, Louisiana after graduation and prior to repairing to the unholy confines of Cambridge, where I met some of the smartest Jesuits I have ever encountered. My views are shaped by that background, as well as by my life since then. For what it’s worth, I offer the following:
1.The comments of Tomasi are the product of the unfortunate marriage of authoritarianism and ignorance. He also continues the mistake of treating the issue as a political, rather than a human, problem.
2. The Church has traditionally done a poor job of psychological screening, although the problem is worse among diocesan clergy. It should be remembered that it wasn’t that long ago that boys could enter minor diocesan seminaries upon graduation from the eighth grade.
3. Homosexuals have been attracted to the priesthood because it offers both a life of service and a safe haven. In point of fact, there is absolutely no reason that a gay person should not be permitted to enter the priesthood.
4. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not synonymous terms, a fact which one would think would be well understood by now. Pedophilia is a serious psychological disorder.
5. The fact that most victims of clerical pedophilia are young boys is not a function of choice, but of availability. Historically, there has simply been less opportunity for priests to have access to young girls.
6. The scandal of child abuse in the Church has been worsened by the hierarchy’s attempts to cover it up and by the refusal of many lay people to accept the truth.
7. The Church will eventually permit diocesan priests to marry out of necessity due to the increasing shortage of parish priests.
8. The elimination of the celibacy requirement will not eliminate the problem of pedophilia. That can only come through far more extensive screening techniques and a zero tolerance policy.
Those are my opinions, and while I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, should anyone disagree with me, let him be anathema.
billy,
Lets be civil, ok? That’s all that is asked. I broached the subject first and I was playing. It is time to not play until we can play civilly.
I try and have fun, and have you noticed, we all do. I very seldom say inflammatory statements. I will play with words as a word smith I have been trained.
There are very few people that can orally debate me and win when I am game. I have learned to choose my battles. Choose your wise. I forget very little. I remember the words of an attorney mentor many years ago. Long before the advent of the computer. The dumbest attorneys spend the time learning the statute and case law. Its the ones who know where to look for it are the ones that make the most money. With the advent of the computer this has been simplified even more so as any and all information is easily accessible by and for anyone so long as they know where to look.
I would be careful messing with Mike S., mespo and especially buddha. They will all take you to task, but the most vicious is buddha. Say what you want, but he will set you up to fall and you will get so pissed off and stupidly respond. This will cause the wrath of others as you have found out. This is only a kind offering of information. That is all.
Wayne,
You got my attention well enough. When someone comes in trolling for the RCC and bashing homosexuals consistently, yeah, that kind of bad behavior attracts attention. Especially after they introduce themselves by acting like a stalker so badly they were the first person I ever saw banned here. So in that, yes, you made an impression. Impressed me though? Not a damn bit.
The Pope is the head of a criminal organization. They systematically help pedophiles escape justice and in that they are aiders and abettors and active participants in a conspiracy to avoid prosecution.
Those are the facts. Period. Nothing you say about the good some people in the RCC do will counter this.
And you haven’t laid out an argument for jack squat. You’ve engaged in the same kind of verbal circle jerk you always do where you can’t refute THE FACTS so you resort to name calling.
You made the impression you’re a troll, little billy can’t keep their nick straight. And now I’ll just treat you like one.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/priests/
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/schneider2002-06-25.htm
Mike Appleton,
Thank you and I agree with your post on this thread. What is the issues and your thoughts on the vow of poverty?
Like I said in my post this morning buddha, you are a “bigot”, a “paranoid bigot”..
And you’re a name calling little troll, billy.
Thanks for proving my point, wayne.
Run along now.
buddha,
I need your help I have been a victim all day long. You can take over now. He is your troll, I tender him to you.
These are the kind of guys the Pope is protecting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17991902
AY,
I hate to disappoint, but this one is a recurring pest. All I can do is spray. He’ll be back trolling for letting the Pope kiss boys and bashing homosexuals soon enough.
You don’t ever have to impress me. I don’t impress easily, I have physicists and an astronomer in my family, who graduated from Cal-Tech. You claiming to be a skilled “wordsmith” ain’t all that compelling senor. I hold two masters degrees from two of the finest public universities in the land. I held a 3.90 GPA. I don’t suffer “wordsmiths” easily either. You made reference to “winning” a debate. What precisley do you win?
I think I can safely assume that there is–at the very least–one individual contributing to this thread who needs to take a double dose of diazepam, sit back, and chill out.
billy,
How you spell “emotionally conflicted”?
Does the term “out of the closet” cause you excessive anger?
Do you find the A&F catalog a little TOO exciting?
Can you reconcile the hate you feel with the love that is supposed to be God?
Color me curious, troll. I’m interested in how you can reconcile all that conflicting crap inside your head.
That’s right billy, come back with some assertion about how smart you are instead of addressing the FACT that the RCC is currently engaged in a criminal endeavor and you endorse it.
Elaine M.,
I think I need to know where to pick up the double dose of diazepam, sit back, and chill out.
Sign me up please.
You wanted to argue.
That is the fact: The RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
Don’t attack me. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about me nor does any one else. Attack the argument, Smart Guy.
Prove the above assertion wrong.
You can’t. But I’d sure like to see you try.
Mike Appleton, et al.,
Gratias ago vos.
Elaine M.
Can I have a months supply please?
Anonymously Yours,
Sorry, I’m not a pharmacist. You’ll have to fend for yourself. Me? I think I’ll go pour myself a glass of wine instead.
Take me to task? This is a blog folks! Nothing more, nothing less. This little two week diversion has been a stimulating experience, nothing more, nothing less. I scratch my chin with some amusement. The “rumblings” of a few attorneys with bloated heads, is hardly a cause for alarm. In point of fact, I am “flattered” you all try so hard to convince me of your brilliance and masterful grasp of the kings’ good English.
Prove the assertion wrong.
We want a counter argument, not more self-laudatory horse crap.
Come on, Smart Guy.
Prove that the RCC is NOT currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
Flattery has nothing to do with it. This is where the rubber meets the road. You claim to be some kind of logical bad ass. Prove it.
Or perhaps in a language you can more easily understand: Put up or shut up.
Oh buddha, buddha, you must just be “flailing” inside..
Elaine M. 1, October 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Anonymously Yours,
Sorry, I’m not a pharmacist. You’ll have to fend for yourself. Me? I think I’ll go pour myself a glass of wine instead.
*********************
I am not a pharmacist either. But I did do my best to learn about the various compounds while in college. I did not go to an Ivy League school I am sure I was not good enough. But I did get into The University in Austin of what is affectionately referred to as the University of Texas, Accounting. Only school I applied to, I was stuck.
Wine now, that’s a good choice Merlot? Good for the soul.
Jon Abey is that you? It’s been awhile.
billy,
The “rumblings” of a few attorneys with bloated heads, is hardly a cause for alarm. In point of fact, I am “flattered” you all try so hard to convince me of your brilliance and masterful grasp of the kings’ good English.
********************
It is one thing to know the kings good English and whose the Irish. It is entirely another thing to know how to use it. Where do you fit in billy boy?
The definition of codependency is “two people” who have mutually compatible neurosis.
Stop “tooting” your horn AY, you reek of insecurity..
Same old Rove tactic.
Answer the allegation. Refute my statement. Otherwise? You’re just admitting you’re a clown without a factual basis from which to argue. And everyone knows that kind of person shouldn’t be taken seriously. That is what you are trying to do, isn’t it Billy? Get people to take you seriously about the RCC being the bestest most wholesome organization in the great big child molesting world? Here’s your chance. Earn some credibility. Or keep being evasive because your a troll. Pointing that out has educational value too. Not to you, of course. But to others.
So please.
Give me a counter or go beat your Bishop. Or you can stay and keep acting trollish, which is also remarkably a lot like that semi-violent clerical sexual innuendo.
The one and the same, Byron. I had forgotten that nick.
billy,
are you saying I am co-dependent? How did you know? I was trying to keep that a hidden secret. You know like Suzanne Summers “Keeping Secrets” now its out. I am embarrassed….
Mr. Appleton,
I find your posts insightful and valuable. And I agree with you.
But.
When I make a mistake, I acknowledge it, ask for forgiveness, and then correct it to the best of my ability.
For such an institution to be engaged in such activities and neither ask for forgiveness nor correct it, leaves me speechless.
Ok Byron and Buddha,
For category name, who is Jon Abey? For extra points what is the story line?
AY,
JA is one of the many aliases used by a long time pest here. The first incarnation I ran into was called Cro Magnum Man although I understand he was here before that as Bartlebee. He became wayne to me because it was in one of his wayne incarnations (WayneBro) that he acted like a truly deranged stalker and wanted to meet me to fight. His M.O. is always the same. He’s childish and does a lot of taunting about sexuality indicating a great deal of personal insecurity on that front. I could tell you how he’s going to respond to THAT little bit, pardon the pun, but I don’t want to ruin the “surprise”. He also consistently stands up for the lunatic fringe of the RCC and simultaneously bashes homosexuals. But when confronted with logic, he’s pure troll. I’ve had run ins with him as have mespo, both the Mike’s and many others that are simply slipping my mind at the moment, but always to the same end and with the same M.O. If he’s not paid by Opus Dei or some other Papist wingnut outfit, he’s one of the most brainwashed people I have ever seen. He’s also quite possibly insane. You might not get that impression as heavily from his billy incarnation because he’s been very mild compared to previous intrusions, but it’s him all right. I had suspected for some time, but he gave himself away by using his Johnny Depp faux pirate “savvy”. He’s a weak writer and has lots of stylistic tells. I know that’s how Mike S. busted him before too if memory serves.
Since I’m lacking a “y” chromosme, I’m partial to speaking the Queen’s English myself. Also, I’m not an attorney/lawyer/barrister–just a little ole retired schoolmarm.
Well Elaine M.,
I know you did your best, you probably instructed one or two of us in the past. SEE WHAT YOU CREATED.
billy:
“To further illustrate my point, a person is either heterosexual or homosexual. Pedophilia is classified as a form of sexual deviance or paraphilia. Therefore the perpetrator would either have to be a heterosexual or homosexual, when this “crime” is commited. When a person manifests “ephebiphilia”. He/she is still defined as hetero or homo in orientaion. The “pedo/ephebephilia” tag is used only to describe the act of sexual deviance or paraphilia. Their are not three kinds of sexual orientaion, homo, hetero and ephebiphilia…”
I disagree, there are some people that do not like adult relationships. Contrary to what you are saying I believe you can classify three ways. Please give your source for that statement.
Gyges or anybody can somebody give me a step by step to get in the past posting? I a being blond.
Byron, what are people called who don’t like relationships? If they are not heterosexual in orientaion and not homosexual in orientation, enlighten me. Thrall me with your acumen. What would the “clinical name” be for just such a person? And stop sucking-up to buddha so shamelessly, it is embarassing man..
In regards to your last question, it was answered, scroll up to find my response. Then run to buddha for validation..
Disprove my assertion.
Or be relegated to abandoning this fake ID to the woodpile because no one will take you seriously.
Prove that the RCC is NOT currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
It’s a simply defined task.
If you can’t complete it, you don’t get to sit at the adult’s table for the holidays, trollboy.
Disprove mine, from earlier in the day, green goblin…
In a line by line refutaion, attempt to debunk, the facts I have provided for you. You have read my thread, you have yet to respond, “please buddha”, thrall me with your acumen, troll…
You don’t have the “skill set” to tangle with me…
Come on.
I bet I can muster more proof that the RCC are indeed aiders and abettors and conspirators to evade justice. How is this?
I have the Google.
Make your case though. If you can.
I will carve you up like a “holiday roast”….
Just what I thought, run back to the table with Byron and AY, you’ll never be “emperor of the North Pole”. I’m a “meat eater” kid, and I don’t lose battles with little attorneys from K.C….
Cry uncle before it is to late son, you don’t want any of this. I will mop the floor with you and your “crazy”, two-bit argument from “google” or “bing” or uncle jeeves. Trust me, you don’t want any part of my logic. I have been playing nice, be grateful..
Ohhh, I see you’ve opted to squirm. I like that even better.
The issue has been framed. You refuse to address it through various forms of evasion. Your inability to engage the task shows it is your skills not up to the task, lil’ billy, but thanks for illustrating the psychological dynamic of projection.
I made an assertion and I gave examples.
You have presented neither evidence nor refutation, only attempts at evasion and obfuscation.
That about sums it up.
As to your earlier assertion, which one do you mean? The first one that got smacked down or the one where you called me a bigot for daring to dislike an organization that protects pedophiles. Tsk tsk tsk.
I think I see the problem here.
You’re all hat and no cowboy. Well. I think you may be a cowboy in the sense that they used that term in the old west. They actually liked the term “drover”, cowboy.
Hey . . . is this you?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/24/new-jersey-judge-drops-charges-against-police-officer-for-having-sex-with-cows-on-the-grounds-that-they-may-have-enjoyed-it/
But seriously. Is it? No, no, I kid. No. Not really. But again, seriously . . .
Put up or shut up. You wanted an argument and you got one and, lo and behold, you can’t get out of it. Boo hoo. It’s not like this very same scenario hasn’t played out in every encounter with every regular you’ve ever had.
And Buddha’s date is at the door. On that note, I look forward to your fine display of frontier gibberish in the morning. Time for us to go to another place you’d need fake ID to get into, billy. Buh bye.
I don’t lose battles with little attorneys from K.C…. –billy
Yep it’s Waynebro, geez, you honestly got yourself kicked out man.
This is a fantastic magnetic space for ideas, I didn’t understand it then and still don’t, Waynebro you completely jumped off the deep end. Now this billy incarnation of you Waynebro is just silly.
I have no idea what it would take for you to make amends, but it would be more productive for all if you could. Wayne I honestly don’t get it, you can’t enjoy being the veiled protagonist?
I think it best that I stay out of this testosterone-infused discussion. Guess I’ll just pour myself another glass of wine–Merlot, Pinot Noir, Cabernet…whatever.
Anonymously Yours,
I’m not taking any responsibilty for having taught a certain “one or two” of you commenting in this thread.
Mike A.,
I enjoyed your comments and the information about your Catholic upbringing. I went to Catholic grade school with the Benedictines and I agree that the problem of abuse is worse with the Diocesan priests. However, I do not share your optimism that the Vatican will eventually allow priests to marry. The Vatican, especially under the current Pope, is very right wing and will kill the Church before admitting that they are wrong. I hope I am wrong. Maybe it is not too late for Billy to enter the seminary!
Part of what the RCC is attempting to do is change the branding of their offenders, from pedophiles to ephebophiliacs. This is worth further investigation since it is prominent in Tomasi’s statement.
An ephobophiliac refers to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents. In the mind of those evaluating this new RCC debate term “ephebophiliac”, the RCC is attempting to position priests as individuals whose sexual preference includes those who have reached the age of consent, late teenagers. This is a clever reset and rebranding through the use of clinical terminology. The RCC moral calculus continues: if an ephebophiliac has a sexual attraction to one who is 18 or 19, then a sexual relationship for someone who looks 18 or 19 (but is perhaps 16) is substantially equivalent, but certainly not pedophilia. Our society considers 18 year olds adults for all practical purposes, and this distinction being drawn by the RCC is subtle but important.
The problem with the RCC argument is that the majority of victims of the RCC were not mid to late adolescents. In fact, the majority were between 11 and 14, although a large group were even younger. In clinical terms, this is hebephilia, and molestation of an 11 year old is something that our society would certainly consider a kind of pedophilia, regardless of what clinical term you put on it. Therefore, this statement by the RCC is purely propaganda, and intentionally disrupts both the moral and clinical debate.
In 1993 there was “absolutely no question that there was overwhelming evidence of child abuse in the Waco compound.” (Stephanopolis), and this was the justification necessary for the government to mount a massive assault on the Branch Dividians, killing dozens.
Where is the siege on the Roman Catholic Church, which has victimized tens of thousands in the United States?
It is perhaps more correct to say ephebophile, not ephebophiliac, above.
Mea culpa in regard to forgetting about Waynebro’s past.
Jan 4, 2009.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/04/leading-israeli-newspaper-pity-for-palestinians-in-gaza-is-immoral-and-unethical/#more-6828
Puzzling,
“Where is the siege on the Roman Catholic Church, which has victimized tens of thousands in the United States?”
I’ve started to notice a trend in which people all want accountability, as long as it doesn’t include them and theirs.
Perhaps life is just afterall and what we have is simply what we deserve.
Still waiting for that line by line refutaion buddha. I don’t suspect I will get it, I asked you first and you don’t have the debating “chops” to tackle me. “Mowing” you down will be fun sport, just proceed by answering my question. C’mon,you need to put on a good show for your little “ankle biter” Byron. His hero worship of you is gonna drop a peg or two if you turn “yellow”. Your so yellow, you stink out loud…..
Elaine M. 1, October 2, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I think it best that I stay out of this testosterone-infused discussion. Guess I’ll just pour myself another glass of wine–Merlot, Pinot Noir, Cabernet…whatever.
Anonymously Yours,
I’m not taking any responsibility for having taught a certain “one or two” of you commenting in this thread.
******************************
I certainly do not blame you Teach.
Refutation of what, exactly? You never specified which piece of nonsense you wanted me to whack you over the head with so let’s stick to the original plan: you answering the charge I made against the RCC with a logical and factual refutation, wayne. You have been Mr. “I can kick your ass in an argument” with just about everyone in here and not once have you bested anyone. Here is your chance. Put up or shut up. Because if all you are going to do is nanny nanny boo boo, then quite frankly, you are demolished already and as big a fraud as that clown the Herr Pope. The good people here deserve better entertainment than this piss poor showing on your part.
So let’s be clear.
I have nothing to refute. Zip, zero, nada.
I didn’t rape any children nor do I support an organization that not only condones this sort of behavior but act as outright accomplices.
You, on the other hand, do support such an organization, wayne. The RCC.
The ball of proof is in your court.
Defend your beloved infallible perfect organization to the world, you follower of men.
That’s what you are here for, isn’t it? I mean, other than getting your daily dose of degradation and humiliation at the hands of those who are without question your intellectual superiors as demonstrated by the perpetual thrashing you get here? Defending the Pope and the RCC and the pedophiles they hide? It’s what YOU do, wayne, not me. That would mean you are on the defensive. I made the charge, you defend, that’s how adversarial process works. Since you wanted to be such an argumentative bad ass and can take on anyone here by your own proclamation, here’s your chance to prove it once and for all.
Prove me wrong in saying that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.” If you can’t/won’t/don’t that means I WIN. This is also how adversarial process works. It’s a dialectic. But if your part of the dialog is going to be name calling instead of evidence and logical refutation of the charge as levied?
That the only kind of dribbling you are good at is closer to drooling is of no concern to me other than it provides good entertainment for the readers.
If the RCC is too much of a challenge for you to defend on a logical factual basis though, wayne, I’ll cut you a little slack and let you substitute an argument in defense of NAMBLA. After all, it’s the same behavior minus the tithing, prayers or natty artwork and buildings.
There is only one issue here and that issue is the systematic cover up and protection of pedophiles by the RCC in order to avoid civil liability for the crimes of their employees.
Can you answer that charge, wayne? Not attack me. Attack the above statement only.
Attacking me personally will be of no avail. You cannot anger me nor can you accomplish anything but make yourself look even more like a troll loser by going back to that tactic instead of answering the charge. You are not as funny as I am so I’ll always turn your ineptness against you when you resort to insult. That has been the history and shows no sign of changing. Yes, yes, it can be entertaining but the real issue here is the one you keep refusing to address.
Stay focused, wayne.
Refute the charge. Defend your precious RCC. Any other reply is just evasion.
Buddha:
Didn’t you like “billy” better when he was in his “waynebro” sporting his mountain man persona? He’s just a little to self-aggrandizing now. I liked the play for sympathy guy we all came to detest.
In Re: billy, lil billy, Billy, wayne, waynesboro:
I am very apologetic for my role in debating with this person. It appears that he takes different strokes and tactics with each and everyone on this site. Then turn into “why are you victimizing me?” enough of that. I just won’t respond.
mespo,
In the words of the Bard, “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet”. I will admit it was funny watching him try to control himself and the blatant kissing up, but in the end, he’s still crazy ol’ wayne.
AY:
No need to apologize. As Mike S and Patty C discovered you can always tell it’s him by the rampant insecurity. Soon he will tell us he’s the Governor of New Mexico (as Pat Harrington used to say on the sitcom”One Day At A Time.”)
billy:
I don’t know what people that don’t like relationships are called other than maybe sociopaths or misogynists. That is not what I asked anyway. All I asked for was a source and then you accuse me of sucking up to Buddha.
Is that your idea of validating your argument? You are a silly man/boy/woman/girl. I happen to think based on my experience and what I have read about this issue that pedophilia is a sexual orientation all to itself. The RCC should use some sort of MMPI type test to see if they can root out child molesters.
But this celibacy thing should go, it was instituted by the Church around 1200 AD because of worries about church property. You want to get rid of pedophiles and clean up the RCC then let priests marry.
I actually thought you were intelligent based on your other posts, I have been proven wrong. All I asked for was a source, a reasonable request in my mind and you come back with “he’s sucking up to Buddha”.
Based on that post I think Buddha is right, you are some sort of sociopath. You came in here sucking up to everybody, like a whore at Mardi Gras. I thought you were up to something then and it looks like I was right.
I really was hoping that Billy would be another welcome addition to the gang here, offering new perspectives and a Gee Whiz attitude, that made me think of smart, new younger folk, just as Foo has been so welcome and addition. When he “morphed” into an older mental health professional, belied by the youthful verbosity of his posts, I was nevertheless glad to have a member with a similar background to mine, albeit a differing perspective, to add to the psychological perspective in the commentary. However, gradually I began to see a pattern that was incongruent.
“Billy,” even while disagreeing was lavishing excessive “flattery” on me, but it was a “flattery” that could be read ironically from the word choice. My intellectual reaction was “Hunh, what is he really saying” rather than “wasn’t that nice.” Then on the Israel thread, as Bob and I vied for who could be the most verbose and put more to sleep
with our arcane arguments at, rather than with eachother, Billy flitted in and out and called me an anti-Catholic bigot. He followed that up most peculiarly with disbelief that I could have grown up in Catholic homes, attended Masses and even like RCC people. That was passing strange and slowly Buddha’s early unmasking of Wayne, began to penetrate my often slow on the uptake brain, but I was yet to be convinced. Others like Mespo, CCD, CEJ and Mike A. beat me to the punch, but in re-reading all the 168 posts on this thread the lightbulb has lit up my brain and I must conclude Wayne has again reincarnated.
Most annoying about Billy/Waynes posts here has been that he has never once answered the question that Buddha and I posed which is how do you justify the protection and cover-up of these Priests by the RCC. That is the central question and he has obfuscated instead of answering it.
Secondly, the bragging has passed from the annoying to the tedious and fantastical:
“I hold two masters degrees from two of the finest public universities in the land. I held a 3.90 GPA.”
George Bush held a BA from Yale and a Masters from Harvard. Ho hum.
Thirdly, for someone who claims work and credentials as a mental health professional:
“Everyone knows that homosexuals are “notorious” when it comes to fidelity”
This, in tandem with assertions that intertwine pedophillia with homosexuality lead me to worry about the patients coming to the MH facility Billy/Wayne purportedly works in. It goes against most beliefs in the field and is a peculiar skew from one who has by his statements shown him to have greater belief in psychological orthodoxy than I. Same skew is seen religiously in the death penalty question.
“My set of statistics are overwhelming, in fact, quite staggering. If you were to look at the statistics of pedophilia, within the church, you will find that it is “impossible”, in fact nearly inconceivable to have this “disproportionate” number of active pedohiles residing, “all at once” in the “demographic” of the church. And applying almost 100% to those in the priesthood, with over 95% of the molestaion taking place with boys!”
Since no citation is proffered than let me inform him that MY set of statistics shows his is totally wrong. Nyanh!
It seems we are on a site with an inordinate number of anti-Catholic bigots. I’ve been called that and I think Mespo too, besides:
“Like I said in my post this morning buddha, you are a “bigot”, a “paranoid bigot”..”
“CEJ, does the word “bigot”, strike a chord with you?”
It seems that evertime this reversion to name calling comes up it comes after a telling point is made against one of his arguments, which he seems unable to refute.
Finally, the denouement comes with the phony macho and bravado in the poses he adapts, mixed with a fantastical view of the purported details of his life. It was so striking that I couldn’t resist satirizing it on the Israel thread. Sorry Billy/Wayne you would be a good fit here if you could rise above the more than neurotic quirks you exhibit.
“You came in here sucking up to everybody, like a whore at Mardi Gras.”
Byron,
I don’t want to nitpick but there is a “w” in that and it’s singular, not plural. Wayne didn’t show us his tits, Wayne showed us he is a twit. That’s a totally different payoff for throwing beads than I’m conditioned to from my years in New Orleans. Not nearly as friendly as the traditional version of the greeting, that much is for sure.
billy:
from my earlier post I wrote:
“I happen to think based on my experience and what I have read about this issue that pedophilia is a sexual orientation all to itself.”
It was pointed out to me that it probably isn’t a sexual orientation but a clinical abnormality and I agree upon further thought.
But you are still a blog lobster, 2 claws and a very small brain.
Buddha:
I did not mean to slight young ladies that show their equipment for beads, I was talking about actual ladies of the evening. the ones that take money for sex and were probably abused either physically or psychologically as children. The ones that are not able to form lasting relationships because of that emotional trauma as children. That is what I was comparing billy to.
I hope this clarifies things.
Regards,
Buddha’s myrmidon
Clear as glass.
Blog lobster twit, yes yes well played!
Bryon, had to look up myrmidon.
CCD:
this blog is supposed to be educational as well as fun.
So are you saying that this is Buddha’ Urine Myrmidon? Tsk, Tsk, what would Zeus have though of next?
A blog full of homosexual socialists, beautiful. And stupid at that.
Go bruins! UCLA Fight! Fight! Fight! Big game in Palo Alto. I love livin’ in the tall grass…..
The Roman Catholic Priests can be quite the wildebeest.
Undressed with the young in flesh pushed against our chest does something to my while I’m in my dress.
I adore people like Billy, not afraid to give us wet Willies and for that we shall return until we are spurned and at teh stake we are burned.
It was all the child’s fault for giving us these wild thoughts.
For that we have been brought, to our knees in these deep thought.
For Billy we are pleased.
For that we’ll drop to our knees and help him clean up this sneeze with a little forethought.
We know it is not diseased, because we are here to please.
This was more than just a thought and for that we should be shot.
We have been able to escape, the realities of our disease.
It was only in thought until we were taught that we’d never get caught.
We soon found that we could place the blame and never have to deal with the shame like we ought.
Because silence can be bought.
We found out too that the courts were a zoo.
And though them we could ooze, like the judge that snoozed.
The blame is the same and protestants are too.
We found out that once again we could blame the Jews.
Wouldn’t you?
Wayne:
Get help for yourself. People injured by priests can get through it. Take a page from Cardinal Joseph Bernardin’s life.
You’re a survivor Wayne, posting here doesn’t get you closer to being well and balanced.
Just some of the Greatest Hits, “hundreds more”. Just type in (on any search engine, Pedophiles and Homosexuality”. The data is staggering). 1) Fox news.com “Shanley co-owned Gay Hotel in California.2) Gay Culture in Catholic Church grows Link: Gay Culture in Catholic church grows.3) Link: Confessions of a Gay Priest by David France. “My good little bloggers”, when you read these articles , just go back to whatever search engine you wish. Homosexuality and perdophile gay priests are synoymous. Seems the only people that don’y get it are you guys. Bruins are comin’ back second half to go.
lil billy’s wanker,
1 )What the hell is this? “perdophile gay priests”
2) Fox news.com “Shanley co-owned Gay Hotel in California?
Who in their right might believes that Fox news is unbiased?
Certainly you do!!!!!
What is wring with owning a gay hotel? Do you believe that they don’t have a right to live in peace? Humm, me thinks you would be please at least you’d know where not to stay, or in your case, where you could get shacked up for the night.
AY, I’ve smoked you out, and please refrain from profanity, you have a much bigger vocabulary than that, remember, you are a Longhorn…
I assume you can read, read the articles and while you are at it, read “all” the surrounding links…..
The truth is so “liberating”, it will set you free. Buddha, I have yet to have “my response”. I requested a refutaion about the statistical abnormalities within the Church concerning gay/pedophile prists. I have provided my info, links and statistics, please “explain to us all”. Thrall us with your acumen, “let me know when you have the answer”. You say, “What’s the question”? The question that I stated was “homosexuality and pedophilia are linked” within the church priesthood”, based upon the “disproportionate number” of male on male molestation with priests and underage boys. My contention is that it would be impossible to have this many pedophiles simultaneously in one place , if they were not in fact homosexual in orientation. If they are not homosexual in orientation, what are they? They can only be hetero/homo, there is nothing else. If you provise a third way I have my “answer waiting”. Please proceed. Articulate your case counselor..
Bummer, Michigan loses in OT and Bruins seriously on the ropes at “the farm”..
Man, I read your posts, you guys are a pack of cut-throat “barracudas”. I go away for a couple of hours and you “all turn on me”. I know buddha dosn’t like me, but “all” of you guys. Gee, I thought we were all gettin’ along. Sorry “Byron” I just hate to see a shameless suck-up, kinda gross man.
I never claimed statistical abnormalities in the the church. Those are your words, sport, not mine. I merely said you’d lose that argument. And you would, but that’s not the argument.
Again, I have nothing to refute.
Answer the damn question, wayne.
Can you prove that the is the systematic cover up and protection of pedophiles by the RCC in order to avoid civil liability for the crimes of their employees?
That’s the only question here ANYONE is interested in hearing answered. I answered that question with a resounding “YES!” and you, well, you have consistently avoided the question.
Put up.
or
Shut up.
Propaganda troll.
“that the RCCC is not involved in the systematic”
I should not eat cake and troll bash as the same time.
Answer the question.
Can you prove the RCC is not involved in an ongoing criminal conspiracy to help pedophiles escape justice so they won’t have to pay out civil damages?
Prove it. You keep talking about how innocent they are.
P – R – O – V – E it.
Unless you can’t. In which case, you should shut your pie hole, troll, go sulk and think of another different yet unsurprisingly lame tactic to try here.
Buddha, We agree, “troll”, the church has covered up pedophilia and payed out a bumper crop of cash , McFly! My contention is that they are doing this because the “wayward priests” in the church are homosexual in orientaion and committing acts of pedophilia, stop the “smoke screen troll”…
Read the links senor, priests “come clean”, they admit “RAMPANT” homosexuality and pedophilia, HELLO! These priests who are homosexual, (inoverflow) numbers should never have been ordained. These homo/pedo priests have been a horrific scandal. This is due to the Church ordaining homosexual priests. Read the links I have provided and stop playing the “answer the question card”. I answered it, my contention which you cannot refute is that these pedo priests are HOMOSEXUAL. Yes buddha, they are!
lil billy wanker,
Punishing the Wayward
Flores Has Disciplined Nine Priests,but Still Faces Some Criticism
By J. Michael Parker
San Antonio Express-News [Texas]
April 28, 2002
In the past 16 years, San Antonio’s Catholic archdiocese has dealt with nine wayward priests, including four indicted on child molestation charges and a priest who admitted three years ago to several affairs with women and who fathered a child when he was pastor of a local parish.
One of the priests, Father Xavier Ortiz-Dietz, is serving a 20-year prison sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a child after he was accused in 1992 of molesting five altar boys. Four years ago, the archdiocese reached a $4 million settlement with Dietz’s victims.
link: http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_04_28_Michael_PunishingThe_Fernandez_AND_Ortiz_Dietz_2.htm
I believe that there is a difference between wayward priest and pedophiles. Maybe you are trying to defend your position. Are you intimating that you were a wayward priest?
You lose buddha, your pathetic smoke screen has been unveiled, you’re weaker than I thought “troll”….
“Prove me wrong in saying that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.” If you can’t/won’t/don’t that means I WIN.”
I think I’ve heard that before.
Hmm. Seeing that you just admitted that the RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control, despite your “poor me” contention that “they’ve paid” – which is out right laughable twaddle – I suggest you go sulk now and change nicks.
You lost.
Go home.
Unless you just want to squirm some more, worm.
lil billy wanker,
You should know that you can be a homo and priest at the same time. Its what you do with the little boys is what is criminal. Do you not see the difference? Or is this you deterrence policy?
AY, your “smokescreen” is only more pathetically obvious than buddhas’, sell it to some boobcatcher jury in the south who share their upper plates to “chew” with…
AY, you’re right, “sadly” the homo priests are the ones’ doing all the molesting…..
Read the articles I have shared, check the search engines, “pull your head out of the sand”, you both live in denial…
Come on, declare your victory again. Just like you did in that other thread where you declared victory over me and I wasn’t even in the argument. You’re not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you certainly are the most delusional.
It’s funny.
http://dmh.lacounty.gov/
Try your standup out on them.
lil billy wanker,
I think the term you used was wayward. Hey get a dictionary, well hell first you’ll have to learn to read and write. Forget about the numbers man. That can come later.
So do you expect the usual family inheritance? The upper incisor?
Denial? No, thanks. You’ve had enough.
YOU LOST.
Too bad.
Buh bye.
When it comes to reason, logic and facts it is apparent now. I graduated from UCLA and you graduated from “Boobcatcher U” Or is your “ignorance and unbelief” coming from some other source..
“Buddha, We agree, “troll”, the church has covered up pedophilia and payed out a bumper crop of cash , McFly! My contention is that they are doing this because the “wayward priests” in the church are homosexual in orientaion and committing acts of pedophilia, stop the “smoke screen troll”…”
That reads as 1) an admission and 2) yet another attempt to slur homosexuals because of the criminal acts of employees of the RCC.
Now what was that you won again?
Denial, ughhh, de nile dee riva dat ruins threw e jipped. rite?
McFly, the criminal acts are covered up by rotten bishops, who never should have ordained these homo/pedo priests in the first place, you lose jack. Buh bye troll….
Come on, troll-o-Pope. Tell us how the RCC isn’t covering up crimes now that you’ve admitted that they are. I’d like to see you eat your own feet up to the knee.
Buddha,
I think you were asked out on a date or at least some form of entertainment?
“Just type in (on any search engine, Pedophiles and Homosexuality”. The data is staggering). 1) Fox news.com “Shanley co-owned Gay Hotel in California.2) Gay Culture in Catholic Church grows Link: Gay Culture in Catholic church grows.3) Link: Confessions of a Gay Priest by David France.”
http://www.medem.com/?q=medlib/article/ZZZUZRUZGLC
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm
Billy,
Since you, not I put such store in the DSM IV the links above might remind you that it does not link homosexual behavior specifically with pedophilia. As for your assertion:
“The question that I stated was “homosexuality and pedophilia are linked” within the church priesthood”, based upon the “disproportionate number” of male on male molestation with priests and underage boys.”
This is not credible statistically considering how many male youths are Altar boys. That number is disproportionate to the availability of young females to these same number of Priests.
However, that whole argument by you is irrelevant even if you were correct. The real basis of discussion here is the RCC condoning pedophilia by ignoring it and trying to cover it up. That is the essential immoral and unethical behavior in question and the RCC’s role in it is shameful and disgusting. The accusations made by the Archbishop above are a weak attempt at refusal to accept responsibility for abetting horrible crimes that have maimed to psyches of countless youngsters. That is fact, not bigotry.
“The truth is so “liberating”, it will set you free. Buddha, I have yet to have “my response”.”
Buddha, can take care of himself but why should he or I give you the response you seek when you have not answered the central question we posed as I stated above:
“Most annoying about Billy/Waynes posts here has been that he has never once answered the question that Buddha and I posed which is how do you justify the protection and cover-up of these Priests by the RCC?”
In summary,
THE CHARGE (Buddha): October 2, 2009 at 6:47 pm
The RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
THE ADMISSION (billywaynejoebobtrollpants):
We agree, “troll”, the church has covered up pedophilia and payed out a bumper crop of cash, McFly! My contention is that they are doing this because the “wayward priests” in the church are homosexual in orientaion and committing acts of pedophilia, stop the “smoke screen troll”…
FINAL SCORE:
Buddha – 1
billy – -1 (0 with one red card for homophobic slurs unrelated to the charge)
AY,
That was last night. I have yet another engagement this evening.
I have again had to delete entries from this thread for inappropriate language and personal attacks. Come on Folks, let’s move on or at least drop the personal attacks and crude language. This is a family show.
Billy “1″ Buddha and Mike S. “0″. Mike S. your statistics have nothing to do with DSM. The statistics have to do with priests molesting boys. Coincidentally, “alter girls” have beem serving priests in most parishes for many years, almost “ZERO” have been molested, in fact I can’t find any statistics sayin any have. Why ? Because the “homosexual priest” who is doing the molesting “ONLY” likes boys. The truth is liberating MIKE S. I think you attended the same Boobcatcher U. as buddhatroll.
Mike, read the links I have provide by the priests who are “insiders”.They admit that homosexuality is “rampant” as well as “pedophilia”. The reason the priests are molesting the boys is because they are homosexual in “orientaion”(we covered this before). The crime they are committing is “pedophilia”, they ONLY molest boys because that is what they like sexually! Staitically over 95%, because they are HOMOSEXUAL. If you were to meet or watch some of these men “interviewed on television”, guess what? They act gay and even admit to being homosexual.
The reason the bishops cover this “muck” up is because, guess what? They are also HOMOSEXUAL!
“Mike S. your statistics have nothing to do with DSM. The statistics have to do with priests molesting boys”
Billy,
Those were your statistics, not mine and I’d like a link as to the percentage of choir girls to choir boys in the last forty years. I think that would resurrect my point.
Your admission:
“McFly, the criminal acts are covered up by rotten bishops, who never should have ordained these homo/pedo priests in the first place, you lose jack. Buh bye troll….”
Is disingenuous because the entire RCC as an Institution covered up these crimes and not just some rogue Archbishops. You don’t think that the entire hierarchy knew, from the Pope on down, that millions of dollars in hush money to settle lawsuits quietly was being paid and that Priests were being snatched out of venues to hide them from the authorities?
Where you miss the boat on all of this, so caught in the net of your own belief, is that I’m not personally saying the RCC is evil, or even that they don’t do some good in the world. I personally believe that their stand against capital punishment is a courageous one and they are the only anti-abortion religion that by doing so remains logically consistent. The RCC has also done much to help the downtrodden and advocated for the poor in the world and that is also a good thing. However, in this instance their actions have been so morally indefensible, that it negates their ability to preach morals and ethics to anyone.
Mike S. your “smoke screen” is as pathetic as buddhas and AY’s It is horrible, that the Church has covered up this “crime”. I have answered your question, I agree it is HORRIBLE! Guess what Mike? You know what is also HORRIBLE? The Church continuing to “ordain men” who are “blatantly homosexual”, who molest underage boys….
Billy,
Who cares if they are HOMO’s I have read a book that suggested Jesus may have been married and BISEXUAL. So why the problem with men having sex with men if they consent? I don’t care for it but it is a choice. Where I do have a problem is when they involve little children. That is where I draw the line.
Mike, Mike, earth to Mike….. I believe that these “rotten priests” should be in prison. Remuneration needs to be made to “all” the victims! Now that this is covered lets’ address the PROBLEM. The ordination of “blatantly homosexual men”, who continue to bring scandal upon the Church because they “molest underage boys”! When they are “screened out” before admission, the “problem” will inexorably change! The “moron bishops” who have ordained these “criminals” should be laicized! They should also have “never been ordained”, due to their proclivities..
Billy,
You’re coming closer to reality with this:
“you know what is also HORRIBLE? The Church continuing to “ordain men” who are “blatantly homosexual”, who molest underage boys….”
However, you still don’t quite get that it is the institution that is to fault and not some “Gay Mafia” within it. This is true of all religious institutions, of all faiths, that have bureaucratized to any degree, including my own. The establishment of any overarching religious institution that claims to be arbiter of a “true faith” and collects tons of money, will eventually lead to control by “religious politicians” who are more self involved, than pious. From that will come behavior such as this, which is more about the cover-up than the crime and makes a mockery of any claim to moral authority.
Sorry Mike, you have it in “reverse”. The institution of the Church is “good”. The teachings help people live better lives. The “gay mafia” you mentioned is the “cancer” within the Church that is causing the scandal and has caused many pepole to lose their faith due to irresponsible Bishops ordaining men, who they knew should have not been ordained, your logic is disordered Mike.
wayne,
You’ve already admitted the RCC is involved in a cover up.
Your feelings about the “organization” or your homophobic bigotry are really irrelevant except to further illustrate the poor quality of your thought and analysis. Neither of these are relevant because they are your opinion and not fact.
Yeah, we’ve heard it. So what. You’re a Papist homophobe. Other than being revolting, there’s nothing wrong with that. It was your choice. But you need to get this through your skull.
This is a law blog. They broke the law, you admitted it. You will NEVER win defending them given that scenario, not in this place.
If you really need to act out this RCC Defender Fantasy of yours, how about moving it over to a Catholic site. Or even better, an Anti-Catholic site. They’ll argue your dogma until you’re all just as happy as pigs in slop.
But here, all you do is end up looking like a loon, wayne. Seriously, move to a more appropriate venue for your interests. The way you are doing it now makes a much sense as a Barbershop Quartet playing Sturgis.
Try this one:
http://acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2006/11/bad-websites-catholics-should-avoid.html
It has a large list of anti-Catholic websites. The provide the list so “good Catholics” can avoid them, but hey, you’re Mr. Go Kick Ass for the Pope. Your time would be better spent at any one of them instead of here, a law blog. Don’t you think?
Your issue is you are in the wrong venue, wayne. You always have been. No one here cares much one way or the other about your RCC other than they are COMMITTING CRIMES which even you acknowledge. You’ll never win here because quite simply the facts are against you and this is a law site, not a pro or anti Catholic site. Law. Don’t care about the church. You want to wage war against those who have it out for the RCC?
Check out that list. It’s a pretty large list. It should be more than enough challenge for you to out and do whatever it is you think you are doing for the Pope. And you are doing neither him nor the RCC any favors by staying here.
You’ve been here since before me and that’s a long time. You have yet to win a single argument and you ALWAYS end up in the exact position you are now. Why is that? You do have some very rudimentary skills despite often acting like a puerile closet case, yet you cannot make the sale on your arguments.
Maybe it’s because you are in the wrong place.
Go to some site you have a chance of victory at – where the topics are actually conducive to your concerns. Because the longer you stay here, the more pitiful, desperate and masochistic you look. Please feel free to stay and look foolish, I really don’t mind as negative examples are always useful, but don’t you ever get tired of just getting hammered? Don’t you want to win some time?
Maybe you should try a different field. This one hasn’t worked out for you. See, you consistently mistake people for disliking Catholics when the people on this site dislike criminals of any religious persuasion. That you’re a homophobic bigot just makes an object of ridicule because 1) hatred is anti-Christian and 2) it’s primitive ignorant behavior based in fear and hate, not fact. That is a fatal flaw to carry in a venue where many of the opposition are trained to not only explode illogical arguments but discredit speakers for bias – a perfectly valid tactic.
Look, I’m not trying to run you off because quite frankly I don’t care about you enough to even try. Your periodic little outbursts are actually kind of amusing, just not in a way you should appreciate. But what I am suggesting is that you’d have more success and find more appropraite threads and more like minds to your own at one of those sites I provided in the link above. You’d be happier and so would the Prof at not having to edit the BillyWayne Journal of Antagonistic Catholicism when this is a LAW BLOG. We’d loose some entertainment in troll bashing, but hey, everyone needs a change sometime.
Think about it.
Buddha, you cannot defeat me. I have already pulverized your argument. You sound like a broken record. You “cherry pick” the argument as you see fit. You have been thrashed, deal trollbait..
You have know argument buddhatroll. Save the fact you keep trying to redundantly articulate the fact that the Church has payed out “millions of dollars to victims of criminal priests”. Every “citizen” who reads the papers and turns on the television knows this! You are a joke, senor. My contention is “fact”, the Church has an admitted “problem”, it is painfully obvious to all but “you and your fellow deluded bloggers” who exist on a plane of serious denial. You argument is beyond ludicrous. The only thing consistently more amusing is your tragic display of self validation and referring to yourself in the “third” person, which is worth the price of admission..
wayne,
I HAVE defeated you. Many here have. You haven’t won once. In almost two years.
But you keep up that sad little delusion all you want.
I wonder though. Since you’re so defective that you think a law blog is the appropriate place to pimp the Pope (and I’ve seen you do it on threads that have NOTHING to do with the RCC), do you try to do other things that are as inappropriate? Like taking your car to the doctor for a tune up or defecating in the bread aisle at the grocery store?
No wayne. You haven’t defeated anyone but yourself.
You’re just not smart enough to realize it.
The RCC is a criminal organization involved in the systematic aiding and abetting of pedophiles in their employee escape justice so they can avoid the civil liability.
What you think of me or anyone else does not change this. That you think you’ve won when you’ve been beaten like a red-headed step child repeatedly by multiple people does not change this. It’s sad, pathetic and mentally deficient, but it does not change the fact you are promoting a criminal enterprise.
Against children.
You cannot change that you are defending an organization that is protecting the lowest slot on the prison food chain: pedophiles. And that your attempted weapon of choice is bigotry.
That tells everyone reading this blog exactly what kind of person you are.
Insane and/or evil.
And now? I think you have become boring. Come back with another incarnation, sport. This one is done.
Buddhatroll, we agree the Church has performed poorly and its’ bishops need to be held accountable.. How do we rectify the problem? Trollbait, guess what? You keep discussing the same material over and over “ad nauseum”. We agree the Church has fouled itself. I still love my Church and my faith. The Church and it’ teachings are good, the rotten , negligent priests and bishops who perpetuated the cover-up are rotten eggs and the criminal homosexual priests who committed these acts of pedophilia with underage boys shouls be laicized and then incarecerated. We agree! Now, how does the problem get resolved? My proposal is to discontinue ordaining active homosexual priests who are activley breaking their vows with adults and commmitting the crime of “pedophilia”. The Church can begin the road to recovery by admitting its’ wrong doing, giving remuneration to the victims of clergy abuse and discontinuing the ordination of HOMOSEXUAL men who have a PROCLIVITY to MOLEST underage BOYS because they NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDAINED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Have I cleared up any ambiguity “counselortroll”?
Buddha, you are toast, deal….
Buh bye buddhapest…
You’ve cleared up that you’re
1) a homophobic bigot and
2) a defender of a criminal enterprise that protects them.
3) A sore loser.
4) A mental midget incapable of winning an argument.
Did I make myself clear? Or do you want to try again to come to KC and kick my ass? You’re down to nothing but insults, so the threats come next, don’t they, big boy? I can tell you’re pissed off to foaming at the mouth just by how you are writing that apologist crap you just posted.
YOU LOST.
Now follow your pattern and go sulk for awhile until you can figure out another way to spray your Papist anti-gay bigotry and not get slapped down for it like you always do, you hateful little closet case.
“them” being pedophiles of course.
Thats what a UC education gets get you ‘troll’, victories against “lightweights” like you. Carmelita and I are both howling at your stupidity! She also is a UC grad ..
rofl
That word. Victory. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Now you and your imaginary hot wife enjoy the hot pockets your mom made while watching the Get Smart marathon. Because I’m going to give you some other words that are more accurate of your performance than “victory”.
Here are some terms for you and what you do that are accurate based on past performance:
Confabulation
The constant and unnecessary fabrication of information or events to fill in gaps in the patient’s memory, biography or knowledge, or to substitute for unacceptable reality. Common in the Cluster B personality disorders (narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, and antisocial) and in organic memory impairment or the amnestic syndrome (amnesia).
Delusion
A belief, idea, or conviction firmly held despite abundant information to the contrary. The partial or complete loss of reality test is the first indication of a psychotic state or episode. Beliefs, ideas, or convictions shared by other people, members of the same collective, are not, strictly speaking, delusions, although they may be hallmarks of shared psychosis. There are many types of delusions:
I. Paranoid
The belief that one is being controlled or persecuted by stealth powers and conspiracies.
2. Grandiose-magical
The conviction that one is important, omnipotent, possessed of occult powers, or a historic figure.
3. Referential (ideas of reference)
The belief that external, objective events carry hidden or coded messages or that one is the subject of discussion, derision, or opprobrium, even by total strangers.
Dereistic Thinking
Inability to incorporate reality-based facts and logical inference into one’s thinking. Fantasy-based thoughts.
Obsession
Recurring and intrusive images, thoughts, ideas, or wishes that dominate and exclude other cognitions. The patient often finds the contents of his obsessions unacceptable or even repulsive
Paranoia
Psychotic grandiose and persecutory delusions. Paranoids are characterized by a paranoid style: they are rigid, sullen, suspicious, hypervigilant, hypersensitive, envious, guarded, resentful, humorless, and litigious. Paranoids often suffer from paranoid ideation – they believe (though not firmly) that they are being stalked or followed, plotted against, or maliciously slandered. They constantly gather information to prove their “case” that they are the objects of conspiracies against them. Paranoia is not the same as Paranoid Schizophrenia, which is a subtype of schizophrenia.
Paranoid Personality Disorder
Perseveration
Repeating the same gesture, behavior, concept, idea, phrase, or word in speech. Common in schizophrenia, organic mental disorders, and psychotic disorders.
Phobia
Dread of a particular object or situation, acknowledged by the patient to be irrational or excessive. Leads to all-pervasive avoidance behavior (attempts to avoid the feared object or situation). A persistent, unfounded, and irrational fear or dread of one or more classes of objects, activities, situations, or locations (the phobic stimuli) and the resulting overwhelming and compulsive desire to avoid them. See: Anxiety.
Poverty of Content (of Speech)
Persistently vague, overly abstract or concrete, repetitive, or stereotyped speech.
Pressure of Speech
Rapid, condensed, unstoppable and “driven” speech. The patient dominates the conversation, speaks loudly and emphatically, ignores attempted interruptions, and doesn’t care if anyone is listening or responding to him or her. Seen in manic states, psychotic or organic mental disorders, and conditions associated with stress.
Tangentiality
Inability or unwillingness to focus on an idea, issue, question, or theme of conversation. The patient “takes off on a tangent” and hops from one topic to another in accordance with his own coherent inner agenda, frequently changing subjects, and ignoring any attempts to restore “discipline” to the communication. Often co-occurs with speech derailment. As distinct from loosening of associations, tangential thinking and speech are coherent and logical but they seek to evade the issue, problem, question, or theme raised by the other interlocutor.
_____
That’s precisely your entire M.O. if you combine it outbursts of anger and note the phobia is severe homophobia, wayne.
And that is that.
Buddha:
I appreciate your pearl casting, but is it really worth it?
mespo,
No, but we got home late and I couldn’t get to sleep. Sometimes writing a bit helps me sleep even if it’s just troll bashing. A purely selfish motive on my part.
Your attempt at sounding “erudite” defining mental health and personality disorders only manifests the “irrelevancy” and tragedy of your argument. Please stop the “crazymaking” and go find easier pickins’ with somebody who will discuss “philosophers” with you. Most of them had minds “for the most part” that were full of mildew much like your argument. Good luck trollbait, happy hunting..
I also love the way you “plagiarize” off the net’ buddhatroll. You and AY are consistently deceptice, which only adds to the obvious weakness in your “arguments”. Keep using those search engines, they are alotta fun..
“your logic is disordered Mike.”
Billy,
I really hope that you aren’t in a field directly supplying mental health services as you’ve implied, because I’m afraid you are displaying dirordered thinking and certainly an inability to respond with anything other than diatribe. You have slipped out of character and returned more and more to your Wayne personna. I really do believe that people can redeem themselves, but so far you are falling short of the mark.
Erudite? No, I don’t have to try to sound erudite because I am. And those mental health definitions provided were not provided as direct evidence of your strategy, merely as an accurate illustration of your tactics over time. That you use the tactics of a crazy person, well, quod erat demonstratum. Res ipsa loquitur.
If people come to the conclusion you’re insane, they do so based solely upon your actions.
Now take your little lurker psychosis and run along since you’ve obviously been perched at your keyboard all night waiting to pounce. But by all means, keep acting like a stalker. I’ll eventually call the FBI if and when I get tired of it.
While we’re on the subject of how “bright” you are, “Mr. T-Rex”. It is apparent to everyone on this blog, save yourself that you are seriously in bondaage to one of the personalities you illustrated in one of your earlier posts(which you plagiarized from the net). The personality disorder you manifest in a chronic fashion is “narcissistic personality disorder”.
I didn’t say I didn’t copy material nor did I claim BASIC DEFINITIONS as original work, you simpleton.
You can try to paint it that way, but it’s false.
Seriously,
http://dmh.lacounty.gov/
They can help and, unlike me or you, they might actually care if you get better.
“My proposal is to discontinue ordaining active homosexual priests who are activley breaking their vows with adults and commmitting the crime of “pedophilia”.”
Wayne/Billy,
Great proposal. Take it up with your bishop or even the Pope to get it done. As Buddha has stated though, this is a Law Site and none of us are using it to reform religious institutions like the RCC, that is for the believers, we are interested in punishment for the laws broken. Capice?
As for which institution of higher learning you attended and were presumably degreed from, that is irrelevent as an indicator of your intelligence. I reiterate that GW Bush has degrees from Yale and Harvard and can’t string to independent thoughts together.
Now I’m done playing with this incarnation. You’ve been discredited and exposed. My job is complete until you next idiotic incarnation.
I can spell “two” though Mike..
billy,
The teacher in me just has to step in here. If you’re going to call out people for misspelling words, you had better make sure that you aren’t guilty of the same thing.
You wrote: “They are celibate by choice and still have know interest in underage children.”
That “know” above should have been “no.”
Those homophones are killers!
shhhhh Elaine.
Don’t say “homophones”. He’ll think you want him to call homosexuals or that the phone company wants him to turn gay.
Buddha & Mike Spindell,
billy claims to be a 42-year-old well-educated psychologist who has traveled the world. Would such a person write what I copied below from another post?
His mood swings and vulgar vocabularies are viler and more repugnant than the foul breezes emanating from a megalopolis’ sewer-settling ponds churning in the hot, humid summer midday’s sun.
When you ‘debate’ billy, he considers himself an equal to you both; we all know that is not the case.
Please strongly consider ignoring billy.
_________________________________
billy (wrote)
1, September 18, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Federal LEO, man you are one sick disordered puppy! You sit there and mock, yes mock the death of this fourteen year old girl, who has a heartbroken family, for all time, and all you can do is make some STUPID, unintelligent statement implying I am a racist, because this cold-blooded murderer is on death row, and I believe needs to die, the sooner the better. He has spent way to long watching ESPN and lifting weights and eating three hot meals a day, to go on much longer. If he were a white man who killed this girl you wouldn’t give a damn you self serving piece of shit! You only open your loud mouth because he is black and you wanna score some fuckin’ points. Your parents must be so proud, I don’t know who is worse, Mr. Broome the rapist/ murderer, or the likes of you- who is all broken up over his dreadful “holiday” in prison. Eat shit and live LEO…
_________________________________
“can spell “two” though Mike.”
Yes you can, thinking intelligently not so much.
FFLEO,
You are absolutely correct. From now on I’ll try to follow your advice.
Mike,
I hesitated to say anything because I most often learn from your (and Buddha’s) exchanges; however, I hate to see this site cluttered with the likes of billy’s vulgarisms. If the ‘kid’ would just stop his foulness then I would just skip over his part and read your relies.
billy, can you watch your foul mouth and argue from conviction and knowledge rather than from repugnancy?
I’ve washed my hands of this incarnation. And while I admire your attempt at reformation there FFLEO, based on past performance you’re not likely to get it from this one. That is why when he shows up, I generally expose him and then let him rot on the vine. He’ll tire of the nick being ignored and ridiculed eventually and go sulk. Since he’s now tried sublimation and infiltration before showing his true colors, I suspect he’ll try that tactic a few more times too. He’s expanding his repertoire like all sociopaths do when they meet with resistance. He is capable of learning as long as that learning feeds his twisted self-aggrandizing mental problem. But actual change is much harder to come by without medical intervention.
Federal FFLEO. Vulgarisms?. Your friend AY uses more profanity than a sailor from San Pedro! Spare me, with your faux shock, that in an earlier post I used some profanity, yeah I did, you ticked me off! I despise duplicity almost as bad as a shameless suck-up! Get my drift? If I offended you I apologize, I have also apologized to JT for the use of some profanity. I blew it man, we all spin out of our center and make mistakes! In this particular post I used zero, repeat zero profanity. What pray tell was vulgar in my posts? If they had been they would have been deleted. I think you don’t like the content because I cut through the ambiguity and redundant smoke-screen counselor buddhatroll uses when his argument is shot to pieces! Why don’t you enlighten me Federal FFLEO, and explain to me and everyone what the problem in the Church has been. We have already established the cover-up, the crimnial activity, the use of “paying off” the victims. Everyone can read a paper and listen to the news. Now, how do you think these rampant problems of sexual misconduct and pedophilia can be ameliorated from within its’ ranks? You have the floor……
I will be waiting with baited breath…….
The phrase is *Bated* Breath.
Baited breath is what *your* mouth smells like when you have just et the catfish bait of night crawler worms and rancid Limburger cheese instead of baiting the hook with said items…
I suggest holding your breath….
Please.
That’s Limbaugh Cheese that you smelled.
Thats’ great Federal FFLEO, you can’t, or won’t answer the question because you don’t know how. You sound clever, really, your rhetoric is “top drawer” and “grammar”, priceless! Still, I would like an answer to the question I have framed for you. You are a clever, erudite blogger . Truly you are a sharp man, with a “sterling grasp of the kings good english” Now I would like you to answer the question senor. I suggest you at least try!
I don’t suspect I will get one. Why? You can’t. You are basically ignorant of this dynamic within the Church and the only real impressions you have formulated come from the incredibly “vapid” posts that buddhatroll and his ilk continue to provide for you. I suggest you think outside the box. It won’t be difficult “really”, the truth is probably right underneath your nose..
More bad news for the RCC.
“Diocese Loses Bid to Keep Abuse Records Sealed
By PAUL VITELLO
Published: October 5, 2009
The United States Supreme Court on Monday rejected a request by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport to delay the court-ordered release of thousands of legal documents from lawsuits filed against priests accused of child sex abuse.
The decision leaves few options for the diocese after a seven-year tug-of-war with four newspapers, including The New York Times, over the release of more than 12,000 pages of depositions and church records.”
Read the rest of the article at : http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/nyregion/06abuse.html?_r=1&hp
Jeesh, what vitriole.
Its like a ping pong match.
IAC
The RCC is a muck up, amazing the try to save face, then smear that face with egg in the process.
I thought the best commentary here was the comparison about Waco and the RCC – some official sed there was definitely some child abuse going on, which they tried stop with machine-gun weilding ninjas, culminating in an inferno incinerating all the abused children. Well that is one way to stop the child abuse.
And yet, upon confirmed thousands of proven cases of sexual molestation, we see no storm troopers running over RCC churches.
Might makes right. If we don’t like you then the allegation is enuf to burn your house down. If we like you, well what’s a few thousand child molestations?
In reporting “clerical abuse”, the grand taboo in U.S. culture is to “focus on homosexuality”, according to Rev. Fiore”. “The media looks upon pedophilia as being done by an aberrant few”, but society looks upon homosexuality as an alternative way of life”, explained the Rev. Fiore. “In the Catholic Church, you are seeing the overriding problem is the abuse of older children from 12-18. More than 90% of the cases, Rev. Fiore reported involve the clerical molestaion of teen-age young men”. This is “not”, true pedohilia, but blatant homosexuality, being perpetrated against adolesent males”. You draw your own conclusion..
The statistics I have unearthed are even more disturbing than I imagined. The truth is a sobering reality…..
Father Fiore was hardly in the mainstream of Catholic thought on homosexuality and pedophilia. In fact, he viewed homosexuality with abhorrence and wrongly blamed it for virtually all instances of sexual abuse by priests. It would be tough to find a more conservative supporter of your views, billy.
Wheteher or not he is the “mainstream Mike”, his statistics don’t lie. The reason he would not be considered mainstream by some, is because he is a “Catholic heterosexual Priest” and a “good one at that”..
I guess you would say that a priest who is having a clandestine relationship with an older adolescent is a “consensual affair”, is that right, Mike?
What is the “official” teaching on homosexuality in the Church Mike?
If you choose to travel down this road Mike, you are going to talk yourself into a “terrible” tangle..
billy,
The group likely to rape a child is an heterosexual male. If the Church truly wanted to avoid sexual abuse of children they would immediately replace all priests with homosexual nums.
Nums would work too, but I meant, nuns. I also meant the group MOST likely…
Sadly Jill, your post is not only inaccurate, but not reflective of the statistics that are so prominently available on the internet. Check them out, it is sobering indeed..
I would imagine the priest, who falls into the 90-95% of abusers,”not to mention vow breakers”, would really be a “heterosexual”, even when he is molesting an adolescent male. Is that what you are trying to articulate Jill?
I had a chance to read your first post Jill. You most certainly come across as “the sound voice of reason”. How come I never thought of that?
Billy,
You indeed are a troll.
billy, I have a practice of not engaging in ad hominem argument or the exchange of pointless accusations. There is no “terrible tangle” with which to be concerned. The Church’s official position is that homosexuality is a disorder and that homosexual acts are sinful. Given the glacial pace with which theology keeps up with science, however, it is to be expected that the Church’s position will evolve. My opinion is that homosexuality is not a matter of “choice,” but of biology. It is also my opinion that sexual predation is not some sort of byproduct of homosexuality any more than it is of heterosexuality. A gay man who chooses a life of celibacy is as capable of maintaining that commitment as is a heterosexual. Therefore, the proposals being debated to bar homosexuals from ordination are ill-informed and shortsighted. With respect to your query regarding “consensual affairs,” it is my view that no relationship is consensual if it results, wholly or partially, from either the real or perceived authority that one person has over another, or if it arises within the context of a relationship of trust. That is why there are ethical prohibitions against professionals engaging in sexual behavior with clients or patients. Thus, it is not purely a function of age as a moral matter. On the other hand, the law establishes age limitations based upon public policy determinations regarding emotional maturity. Actions taken in violation of the law or of the foregoing ethical prohibitions are presumptively wrong.
Morality does not evolve Mike. Sin is sin. Sodomy will never be condoned in the Church. Glaciation has nothing to do with it. Adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of immoral sexual activity will never be endorsed by the Church or condoned. These pedo/homo priests are the “cancer” in the Church and the homosexual bishops that have been ordaining these men are the “truest” form of cancer that the Church has “sired” in recent decades. The “pedophilia aberration” is a mere biproduct of the multiple abuses that have been overlooked and endorsed for so long. These “abuses” have slowly and inexorably caught up with the Church. I think it is wonderful that the Tridentine mass has returned under the Pontificate of Pope Benedict the XVI. The wheel has slowly begun to turn yet again, back to following the Church and “all” of Her teachings. I agree homosexuality may be a biological truism, but one has control over what they choose to do with that “biological urge”. Great graces are to be had by denying these impulses and seeking virtue through temperance and self denial..
Yup, Tigers CHOKE! How do you blow a three game lead, with four to go. If I’m the GM for the Tigers, its’ “bye bye” Leyland. No excuse…. Oh well, I have the Angels to root for. I hope they win it all, like in 02′..
Also Mike, the garden variety pedophile cruises schoolyards, looking for pre-pubescent children, check out that statistic! The priests who have been “busted”, have primarily been “busted” with young men. Men who are adolescents, who have in fact gone through “puberty” and are capable of “siring” children of their own. Let me draw you an analogy. Look at all the women high school teachers that are “jumping” in the sack with the local high-school stud! They are on the news every night! They are “heterosexual” in orientaion, they are committing a “felony” because they are having sex with a MINOR. They are not true “pedophiles”, but are breaking the law for having an illicit sexual “fling” with a minor. Same holds true for the “homosexual” priest, they aren’t hitting on sixteen year old girls in the “Catholic high school”, uh-uh Mike, they are making “sexual advances” toward the young adolescent males, from between the ages of 12-18. This is “not” true pedophilia, but active and criminal homosexual acts with a minor! Does my analogy strike you right?
“Simple logic”, UCLA had nothing to do with that..
billy, I agree that all normal people have control over their biological impulses, which is why the fact of a person’s homosexuality should not disqualify that person from any calling, whether religious or secular.
I disagree with your comment on morality. Of course it evolves; history tells us that. Regarding the Tridentine mass, its return will be of no particularly benefit to the health of the Church, although it does satisfy those who have labored mightily in opposition to the reforms of Pope John XXIII. (I can tell that you were not around in those days.) Frankly, I learned as a young altar boy in the ’50s that the only people in the congregation who ever understood any of the Latin were the priests and the altar boys.
I also disagree with your “analogy” on the issue of sexual abuse. The ability to impregnate a female is a wholly meaningless measure of maturity.
Finally, I note that a review of your posts shows striking similarities to those of another identity on this site, but whose name I do not recall. That individual had a habit of lifting quotes directly from various conservative Catholic sites. I do not know if you are the same individual, but I did do some checking and discovered that some of your statements are likewise taken verbatim from the words of others. If you wish to debate any issues, I would appreciate your using your own thoughts and words.
Mike your “paranoid ideation” is only eclipsed by your weak argument. funny, how the tridentine mass benefited millions of the faithful for hundreds of years and even now millions around the world clamor for it. In fact the Pope has even recociled with the society of st. Pius the X and the use of the 1962 Missal has a new imprimatur and nihil obstat on it. You say you disagree with my analogy regarding homosexuality and its’ scandal within the ministerial priesthood, explain to me how my analogy is WRONG and my statistics are inaccurate.
Also, present to me “precisely” when in the history of the Church their is evidence of “evolution”, in regard to “sexual immorality” and the Ten Commandmants.. Dates of encyclicals would be most helpful..
The measure of “maturity” I was illustrating was to establish the fact that these priests are not attracted to 5,6, and 7 year olds! They are primarily attracted to YOUNG MEN, who are “adolescent”! Thet are attracted to them because they are homosexual in orientaion. Its’ funny, I have non-Catholic friends and “THEY” are even aware of this dynamic and scandal within the Church Mike, how come it eludes you?
The reason “they” are attracted to adolesect males is because these “homosexual priests” are trying to have a “sexual relationship with these “congregants” Mike. Before me, I have a copy of the “NEW 1962 Roman Missal”, complete with nihil obstat and Imprimatur from the Most Reverend Fabian Bruskewitz DD, STD Bishop of London which was given on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Sept. 14 2007.
The reason the Church used Latin in its’ liturgy was because the langauge has know “ambiguity”, it is “very precise”, latin means what latin says. Coincidentally, the sermon/homily was always in the vernacular and the missal has two sides one in the vernacular the other in latin. I never bought this argument. Also, the novus ordo mass is not being discontinued, because of the resurgence of the tridentine mass, only reinstated. A cleric also has the option now of even saying the “novus ordo missae in latin”.
Coincidentally Mike, every, EVERY word I have posted comes from my mind. If I “quote” somedody I will use quotation marks and let you know. I stay away from “plagiarizing” other writers. I wish others’ on this blog would also follow suit. Coincidentally, you will notice when I quoted Father Fiore, I used quotaion marks, and I will state the person who articualted the thought or statement; when I use an external source of information.
Morality may evolve from a secular perspective. But from the Churchs’ position, uh-uh. Sin will always be sin. I will be waiting for those dates and encyclicals, that show an “evolution” of morality within the Catholic Church..
“Sin will always be sin.”
*************
What happened to all those poor souls who were condemned to Hell for the “sin” of eating meat on Friday? Did they get amnesty? All sins are equal; but some sins are more equal than others.
On the evolution of Church “morality” on abortion see the following”
“Most Catholics are not aware that the infallible Church and popes have changed their minds several times on this topic–unthinkable from today’s perspective.
From the fifth century onward, Aristotle’s view that the embryo goes through stages from vegetable to animal to spiritual was accepted. Only in the final stage was it human. Thus Gregory VI (1045-6) said, “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.” Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn’t yet human. His successor, Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed. His Bull of 1588 made all abortions for any reason homicide and cause for excommunication. His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days.”
(Hunt D. A Women Rides the BeastHarvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR), 1994, pp. 519-520).
and
“Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception…For fourteen hundred years until the late nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception…
From the fifth century, the church accepted without question, the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated.
In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault…Some went further. They said it was permissable to save a mother’s life even after the foetus was humanized…
Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human…His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus’ view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus’ censures were to be treated as if he had never issued them.”
(De Rosa, Peter. Vicars of Christ. Poolbeg Press, Dublin, 2000, p.p 374-375).
Mans’ ignorance of conception in the fourteenth century is illustrative of his ignorance of science not morality. Also, the Church does not teach that all sins are “equal”. Where in the world did you get this piece of erroneous information from Judge? The Church teaches that some sins are more grave than others. Committing murder is a bit more deleterious to the life of the soul than committing the venial sin of “detraction”. Murder is a mortal sin, like adultery! They both are bad, but one could cost a person eternal life in heaven”. As a Cathoilic I do not eat meat on fridays during lent. When it was compulsory to not eat meat on all fridays of lent, it was never “taught” that it was a mortal sin if a person slipped and had a piece of bacon. This is “rubbish” and was never taught by the church. As I have illustrated, not all sins are equal in gravity, nor does the Church teach as such. Their is a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Even our sophiticated legal system, can make an obvious distinction between the crime of “armed robbery” and jaywalking. Both are criminal acts, one is particularly serious, with a much graver penalty. Please review this link judge: “Priest for Life, Teachings of the Catholic Church on Abortion”, excerpts from The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Life Abortion and Euthanasia (#2258-2262-,2268,2279. Review article 5, Fifth commandment”. The Church has never endorsed or condoned abortion. Not in any written “encyclical” has this been condoned or endorsed. When the Pope may/or may not have made this statement, he was not speaking “ex cathedra’ on Faith and Morals. Your farce is plane to see, as usual judge. But I do enjoy it when you attempt to wax theological.
Coincidentally Judge, I asked for an “encyclical teaching” on matters of “faith and morals” in regards to abortion which the Church has published complete with “nihil obstat and imprimatur”. Not a statement from the Pope, six-hundred years ago,”which he may or may not” have even been said.
I would like to amend my earlier post. Not eating meat on fridays’ of Lent is compulsory for the faithful as well as on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. They are bound by this law of abstinence from their fourteenth birthday to their sixtieth birthday. It would be at the discretion of the churchmemeber if they choose to abstain on these fast days prior to fouteen and after the age of sixty. Please see Code of Canon law #1252.
One other point of distinction Judge. A Pastoral statement and Pastoral Council is not the same thing as a “dogma of the Church”. We are only interested in “dogma”, not a “pastoral statement”. Dogmas are infallible teachings of the Church, that are not open to “revision” or interpretation. As I have stated earlier the Church is not a democracy, nor a republic..
billy:
“As a Cathoilic I do not eat meat on fridays during lent. When it was compulsory to not eat meat on all fridays of lent, it was never “taught” that it was a mortal sin if a person slipped and had a piece of bacon.”
*******************
Facts have a funny way of vaporizing your assertions:
“Explicit mention is made of the practice of abstaining on Fridays in a documents from the end of the first century (The Didache of the Apostles), as well as by St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian in the 3rd century. It was the universal custom from the very beginning, and Friday was chosen in memory of the Passion of Our Lord, as a day on which we should make a special effort to practice penance. It is in recognition of the fact that Christ suffered and died, and gave up his human flesh and life for our sins on a Friday that Catholics do not eat flesh meat on Fridays. Pope Nicholas I made this a law of the Church in the ninth century. In the Latin Church, from the early middle ages this one day of abstinence was not considered enough, and Saturday abstinence was added, in honor of the burial of Christ and the mourning of the Blessed Mother and the holy woman on Holy Saturday. This was made a law of the Church by St. Gregory VII in the 11th century, but has since fallen out of custom, except by those who desire to profess their devotion to Our Lady in a special way. The Eastern rite Church also had strict rules for abstinence, given that it was binding for them on Wednesdays and Fridays.
…
“The abstinence from meat is an ecclesiastical law, but one which has long obliged under pain of mortal sin. Pope Innocent III made this very clear at the beginning of the 13th century, and in the 17th century Pope Alexander VII anathematized those who would minimize the character of this obligation and declared that transgressions against it were only venial sins.”
(SPX Seminary rector, Fr. Peter Scott)
You would think one would know the history of the delusion one practices, but whom am I to question the Defender of the Faith.
Does your deception have any limitaion? Precisely my point Judge. As usual your smokescreen is as obvious as ever! I have friends, like myself who are Catholic, but they are marginal at best, and only go to mass irregularly. They even eat hamburgers on fridays’ during Lent. Is it a sin? You betcha! Is it as grave as committing murder? Nope. Does the church teach that it is mortal sin, if a person blows it, and forgets its’a friday of Lent and eats a piece of bacon. OF COURSE NOT. Just don’t eat it later in the day, now that you have “caught on”, and remembered that it was a “friday of Lent”. I love your use of “google”, to gather data, that “you yourself were ignorant of” and than passing yourself off as a Catholic Historian, who “pretends” he has had these facts floating around in his head, just waiting to “pop out” at the opportune time, to educate some ignorant Catholic who forgot the “exact words” that Pope Alexander VII made in the 17th century. Your desire to convince me of your erudition, has only dropped a peg or two, but I still like you Judge. The Church teaches that, to not follow the fast and abstinence rule during Lent is a sin. I agree, and follow the rule of abstinence faithfully. If I make a mistake, I am sure God would understand if I forgot and still continue to work with me and love me. If I chose to “flippantly” disobey the Churchs’ teaching and consumed meat on a friday of Lent, due to apathy, I would indeed be incurring a “serious sin”. Only God knows the official gravity of it, but even than I could be reconciled by asking for forgiveness and abstaining from meat, for the remainder of Lent. The beauty is that I could be “reconciled”, not that I would be punished Judge..
Coincidentally Judge, I was originally discussing “immorality”, not “adhering to a fast and abstinence” law within the Church. When discussing morality, I have stated that the Church has never taught that morality is “evolving”. The modification of a law on “fast and abstinence” is not a “question of morality” or immorality. It is a question of “obedience to the Church”. Immorality deals with “vice” and being “unchaste”. I think you are confusing the point I was trying to illustrate. Or is this another of your transparent smokescreens?
I am waiting for you to give me an example of the “evolution of morality” within the Church. The “fast and abstinence law” was not an example, nor was the abortion issue, that was debunked.
That you refuse see the rational truth doesn’t prove it’s not there. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if changing he violation of the Friday rule of abstinence from a mortal sin to a venial sin to no sin at all is a sign of moral evolution prompted by the foolishness of the dictum colliding with reason, or if the permitting of abortion in the past and the absolute ban today is de-evolution. What cannot be disputed is the utter banality of the defense you interpose for a system of belief that is based on neither reason nor prudence, but merely blind adherence to ancient thinking and fear of the unknown and unknowing. I think I question religion because its central tenet is that the sky is falling and some “Big Brother in the Sky” needs to help.
Judge, you are not answering my question. I asked for an example of the “evolution of morality”, within the Church. Your desire to discuss “fast and abstinence” is not a question of “morality”, by secular or Church definition. Disobeying a “fast and abstinence law” does not make me immoral! It makes me disobedient. I think your understanding of the word immoral is obviously quite different than mine as well as the Catholic Churchs.
I refuse to see your position as rational or logical Judge because it isn’t….
Slavery was perfectly ok for the Catholics until well after the Civil War.
They relied on the Bible, just like the southern Protestants.
There were lots of Catholic slaveowners.
Roger Brooke Taney was a Catholic.
Slavery moral?
Not any more.
Slavery has been a sin for Catholics since the late 19th Century.
Dred Scott,
So good of you to drop by. The profiteers on that front was the Catholic Church. They were slave runners. No Ship could sail under the Holy Roman empire unless it had the sanctification of the Church.
Billy,
Your diatribes are getting nauseating. I wish that no one would respond to your BULLSHIT and maybe you’d go away.
Dred Scott, what was the “official teaching” of the Catholic Church on slavery in the 19th century? The fact that Catholics owned slaves does not tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching was. Their are “baptized Catholics” who commit the crime and sin of “murder”, does that mean they are “reflective” of the teaching Church? The point I am trying to illustrate is simple. Because “bad people” with compromised consciences did bad things, does not make the Church bad. Maybe just some misguided, ignorant members were bad, because they chose to do things, “that were a little less than wonderful”…
Coincidentally Dred, I was discussing the issue of “sexual morality and immorality”, within the “teaching organ” of the Church, not the abuses of slavery in North America or abroad..
Billy, what was the “official teaching” of the Catholic Church on slavery in the 19th century?
In the 1st Century?
Today?
Dred Scott, “earth” to Dredd, You have come in on the subject a little late. We were discussing “sexual immorality” and its’ evolution throughout the ages. My contention is that sexual immorality has “never evolved”, others claim it has. You telling me that Catholics owned slaves is off topic and is somewhat irrelevant. Guess what? Catholics sin all the time, so I still am perplexed by your question in light of the topic..
Dredd, maybe you can tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching on slavery is? Please, thrall me with your acumen..
Dredd, maybe you can also tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching is on abortion and homosexuality. Slavery is kind of a dead issue Dredd, but “abortion and sexual immorality” are going on as we speak. Maybe you can tell me how you feel about these two immoral acts?
I had no clue that Catholics had cornered the market on slavery.”Gosh Dredd”, maybe you can write some revisionist history..
Billy asked for an example of the “evolution of morality”, within the Church.
The Church’s teaching on the morality of slavery has changed.
There is an example of the evolution of morality within the Church.
Google the writings of John T. Noonan and Charles Curran on the topic of changes in Catholic moral teaching on slavery.
End of visit.
Sorry Dred, we were talking about sexual morality and misconduct, you are decidedly off base. Good job though. Immorality refers to unchastity and vice, not slavery, not by a secualar definition or by the Churchs. Nice try though…
Billy is like a “roaring apologist”, once he is let out of his cage, he can very ably defend himself and the Church..
Immorality by definiton refers to “unchastity and vice”. These two words “imply a sexual connotaion”, or a habit or addiction. Your postion Dred, in light of the discussion, and by definiton is wrong and illogical..
billy:
how is it going? you sure do have a way with words, I am fascinated by your mastery of the English language and knowledge of RCC history.
Keep plugging away with your argument, in reading everyones posts I get the feeling that they are almost convinced. Just a little more and I think you will have them eating out of your hand on this issue.
Well anyway keep up the good work.
Immorality by defintion: “To be sexually depraved or promiscuous”. I could go on and on, but what would be the point. Judge, I have asked you for an example of “sexual morality” and its’ decided “evolution” within the framework of the Church. I will be checking back periodically for my response..
Thanks Byron/Bron I will, keep drinking that kool-aid…
“…once he is let out of his cage…”
__________________________________
However, most here at the Turley blawg prefer to see billy’s mommy keep him in his crib (cage) whilst rattlin’ his baby rattle and not the big boy’s keyboard.
Its’ a big crib, with lotsa room..
Gee, I thought I was doin’ pretty well. Oh well, us ham and eggers’ just keep pluggin along..
Carry On Billy. I have no quarrel with your ‘clean’ posts and someone is bound to reply to you.
Federal FLEO, Thanks for the kind words. I am afraid to validate or express apprecaition to anyone, because I will look like a”suck-up”!I don’t care. I want you all to realize I appreciate your “well written” posts. Judge, FFLEO, Bob ESQ, Mike S., et al, you gentlemen give me a barrels worth of entertainment and help to “liberate” me as well. I have cause for reflection and derive genuine pleasure when reading your “absorbing insights” on a wide variety of subjects. As i have stated earlier I like the religion and science blogs. I steer clear of most of the heavy political stuff, because it is just not in my wheel-house. But still I am learning all the time from you clever “wordsmiths”. Thanks for letting me share, and I will try not to offend..
I’m gonna change gears. I need a new post. Nobody is ever going to agree on this matter. I obviously have my viewpoint and Judge and Mike A., you have yours. Well, we can agree to disagree and still appreciate each other.
I wanted to also share with Dredd, if I wrote to you in a condescending tone I apologize. I was a little bit abrasive, that was not right..
billy:
I dont drink kool aid, it is not my cup of tea.
Byron, I should not have called you a “suck-up”, or made the Kool-aid reference, I apologize….
Today is the “Our Lady of the Rosarys” feast day. Oct. 7, in the General Roman Calendar.
Accepted.
Sincerely, take some time to read up on the history of the development of the Church’s views of the morality of slavery; it is relevant because all conventional definitions of immorality and morality are far broader than mere sexual misconduct.
billy:
I suppose it takes one to know one, you are an invertebrate suck up. My skills pale in comparison. I am not worthy.
“Immorality refers to unchastity and vice, not slavery, not by a secualar definition or by the Churchs. Nice try though…”
********
By failing to acknowledge slavery as a moral issue you disqualify yourself from any rational discussion. To say that ownership of fellow humans does not involve a moral choice renders you either ignorant of the word’s meaning, or non compos mentis.
Byron,
That was beautifully done. Best parody I’ve read all year.
Byron For Emperor!
Byron,
Very well played indeed.
Holy hymnal, Batman, when is the “fat lady” going to sing? I go away for a millenium–and the discussion continues. And on to infinity…
Gyges/Mespo/Buddha:
An artist appreciates recognition by those he admires. I knew if anyone would appreciate that little play on words it would be you, being consummate wordsmiths.
Hi Judge, I’m back We were discussing “sexual immorality”. I think you are once again trying to evade the issue. We were not discussing “food prohibitions”, “slavery” or the “pilfering of candy”. We wre discussing the church “never” endorsing or modifying her postion on sexual immorality, ie. adultery, fornication or homosexuality. I have pretty well covered with statistical and theologic proof that pedophilia is but a smoke screen, due to the rampant abuses going on in the contemporary Church. Admit that over 90% of the molestation in the church is perpetrated by priests upon young adolescent males from the ages of 12-18. When you admit this, you will than admit that homosexuality has been the cause of the “grave scandal” poisoning the church for decades. The “aberration of pedohilia” is but a smokescreen for the “immoral conduct of the homosexual” priests that have abused and perverted their authority , by victimizing young adolescent males. The statistics are posted on a “multitutde of search engines”, to enumerate them all would be far to daunting. I suggest you go back and type in Father Fiore and Homosexuality in the Church. Also, type in the works of Dr. Nicolosi, in Los Angeles. He has spent over twenty years attempting to weed out applicants to the priesthood with proclivities toward homosexuality. Coincidentally, he is a Catholic psychologist who ardently believes that homosexuality is a sexual disorder and is capable of being cured.
I find it even more compelling when one studies the behavior of pedophiles, in that they frequent school yards looking for pre-pubescent children to molest. The priests in question are molesting young men that are quite capable of siring their own family as the majority of them have gone through puberty! This is what you call a “man looking for sexual relations” with another man, who he feels is capable of having sex with him. Father Fiores’ statistics are accurate and reflective of the Church in America. If you were to interview, or listen to the interviews given by these “priest perpetrators”, they will freely admit they are HOMOSEXUAL!
The illicit and illegal sexual activity that these homosexual priests have perpetrated is indeed a “crime” and an evil and shameful abuse of their authority and power within the Church. The only thing more “reprehensible” has been the homosexual Bishops who have been playing “hide the pedophile”!The prelates who have done this are even more guilty for ordaining these men, and than attempting to hide their glaring mistake by shuffling this deviants’ around. Recidivism in this behavior is staggering and these homosexual perpetrators need to be removed from active ministry and laicized as well. Until this pattern is altered, I feel the abuses will continue and the scandal will continue to plague the Church. Once proactive steps are in place to remove actively homosexual men from the ministerial priesthood, a noticeable change will take place. Not overnight, but slowly and inexorably….
Billy,
You really are becoming a bore or is that boar. Take your medication and call the Nurse in the morning and confess that you really are a Homosexual Defrocked Catholic Priest looking for friends. You could not control your urges and now you must make others pay by this hyperbole. Think about it, throw out a good offense, yes you have been quite offensive.
The word “immorality” by definition and used in the context we were using it was accurately defined by myself. Vice and being unchaste, is the most common definition of immorality. Sexual depravity and promiscuity are words that define “immorality”. Thanks for reading the post Judge..
Homosexuality is a gravely disordered act, perverted and perverting. Sodomy between men is not a logical and wholesome alternative to the procreative union of man and wife, authorized by the Creator for the fulfillment and enrichment of the human race..
So Billy,
Are you a pole smoking, fudge packer, defrocked catholic priest?
AY, you are a “doggone Texas Longhorn”, do you have to talk like that! Remember, we can disagree and be civil, I still like you..
I realize I have few friends on this blog, but I wasn’t expecting to make that many with my religious beliefs..
Judge I will be wating for my reaponse, the question has yet to be answered. I never said slavery was just, moral or acceptable. Please stop the game playing. Use all of your skills, your considerable powers to refute me! I want you show me in history when, where, and how the church has modified and altered her postion on “sexual immorality”. The most obvious forms are, but not limited to fornication, sodomy(homosexuality) and adultery. Now, lets’ get refocused and back on course shall we. You were doing well, you made some “headway” with the abortion issue. Sadly, you fell short because you were unable to prove that this teaching was altered from being somewhat tolerated to becoming a mortal sin and grounds for immediate excommunication. In fact you would incur “ipso facto” excommunication if you procured an abortion or performed one or payed for one. Please see “Cathechism of the Catholic Church: Page 606-2271″. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. Please proceed.
Furthermore, your belief that “immorality applies” to a modification in the “fast and abstinence laws” within the Church is also wrong. By defintion and in point of fact.
Byron or is it Bron? I hope you haven’t been “hi-jacking” peoples sobriquets again and pretending to be them, like you had in the past. I read in one of “buddhas posts” that that was how you got busted last time. Tsk, Tsk..
Bryon,
You can Hi-Jack mine son long as you don’t get me banned. But please do not agree with lil billy wanker on nutin.
Byron/Bron(?) is very deceptive and has a past history of doing some less than wonderful things…
AY, that is no way to talk to me. I admit you are a “wordsmith, and have more “clever” sayings than Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
Well good night Judge, I just checked the blog to see if you had responded to my challenge. I didn’t think you would, you have already proven to be deceptive and disingenuous in our past debates, so the beat goes on. I was wondering if Byron got “busted” again for “ripping off” other peoples’ “sobriquets”? I understand he has history of this type of chicanery. If I’m not mistaken he may have even pretended to be me in a past blog..
billy:
“I realize I have few friends on this blog, but I wasn’t expecting to make that many with my religious beliefs..”
I don’t think it is because of your religious beliefs, most people here seem to be agnostics, deists or atheists but they typically live and let live as far as religion goes unless you shove some bravo sierra up their backsides.
As to the Bron98 issue, I was banned and paid my debt. The professor was kind enough to let me back on and I have not posted as someone else since. Obviously you do not believe in redemption, so I seriously doubt you are much of a christian in the true sense of the word. But then I find that a good deal in people that profess their beliefs from the highest mountain tops, they usually are anything but good Christians. I always say that when someone starts talking about how christian they are grab your wallet and make sure you have steel underwear on because you are going to be robbed and then f……. right in the a…… That bit of advice has never been wrong.
Typically people that have no faith are usually much more kind to people because they do not believe that one’s reward is in heaven but here on earth and so they treat people accordingly.
You are without a doubt a disturbed individual and certainly no evangelist for your faith. I bet skunks convert more people, at least the skunk is honest in that it stinks by it’s nature and people understand it cannot help itself. When you see a skunk you usually say “oh please God don’t let him spray”. So if he doesn’t spray there is always the possibility for a conversion due to a miracle.
Maybe I have hit on something, you are so obnoxious that we are all praying you don’t post. I figured out how you can have a massive conversion on this website – just don’t post and we will all, in unison say “thank you Jesus, praise God it is a miracle”.
No Bron, I think you are a duplicitous little “brown-noser”, who is very immature. You will invariably do something that is reflective of your personlity disorder, like “hi-jack somebody’s sobriquet”, probably posting from an internet cafe. In the hopes of scoring some points with “your admirers”, you comport yourself like a five year old starving for the validation of a parent! Sadly you probably don’t have any body to hang out with, or validate you outside of this blog. You have attacked me relentlessly, but have yet to refute any of my cogently presented and factual arguments, at least the others have made an attempt Byron/Bron. TTFN
You also pretended to have a genuine interest in Catholicism, I realized this was all a ruse to “ingratiate” as well. You have know shame and apparently will say or do just about anything to “open a can of worms”. I believe sincerely in what I believe, in listening to your fawning praise of “your” admirers the only thing I have deduced is that you are lonely. I don’t believe that you believe in ANYTHING! You claim to be a conservative, but you never challenge or debate anyones’ liberal view points, because you are so weak you know you can’t win the argument or you are not actually a real conservative and will invariably say anything, for the sake of saying it. In either case, the only thing I have yet to see from you on this blog is the shamelss praise from a lonely man, with ZERO conviction about anything. At least I have the heart and conviction to stand up and be counted. You are just a boring sycophant, enjoy the kool-aid..
billy/wayne/et al:
all I can say is you don’t know me so I will leave it at that.
For the other part I really don’t care what people do with their lives, I am a live and let live person. I only have one real conviction and that is I want to be left alone by government, by religion and by people who think they know what is best for me and my family. You strike me as someone who would, if given enough power, either convert people or kill them and let God sort them out. You are no different from some totalitarian thug like a Hitler or Stalin who enslaves people in their delusional view of Utopia. One puts God as the object of worship, the other the state. There is no difference.
Your RCC should have gotten rid of the child molesters and should not have protected them, it was evil. The info I have read is that pedophiles are a class unto themselves and only care about the age of the child. I haven’t read enough to know what that age is, some will molest infants, some 8 year olds, some 12 year olds. What is the common denominator, probably prepubescent. If a priest molested a 16 year old then I would agree that they are most probably gay. If they molest a 10 year old I would assume pedophile. Either way they have committed a crime and your RCC has endorsed and sponsored said crime, the fact that they are hetero or homo is not the issue, the crime of child molestation is the issue and the cover up of said crime.
Those priests should be in jail, why aren’t they? You think the Pope doesn’t know what Father Benigan down at St. Mathews is doing? BS, he knows, Popes are not stupid men (well maybe a couple). They sponsor pedophilia by their silence and unwillingness to prosecute.
The RCC is generally a force for good, but they are doing the devils work on this one.
billy:
you are just a boring one trick pony, RCC or bust. You have a good deal of knowledge about one thing. Don’t they call those types of people idiot savants? Are you adept at counting cards to?
I have a good deal of in formation about the RCC, correct Bryon/Bron, you “sadly” don’t have a good deal of information about “anything”..
I know one thing I am very adept at Bryon, “making you look stupid”..
You are adept at one thing and one thing only wayne.
Being a self-blind tool for the agenda of others because you are attempting to substitute their idiotic dogma for your pure lack of conscience. It’s called “cover” and it’s something sociopaths and psychopaths seek to draw attention away from their dangerous mental disorders. You desperately cling to the illusion you are capable of ethical behavior by hiding by dogma – which we all know is not ethics but rather the biased talking points of a religious organization designed to perpetuate the organization or provide succor to the greedy and pedophiles that organization hides within its ranks.
You are very good at making yourself look like either 1) a crazy person [my vote, Mr. Try To Kick My Ass] or 2) a chump and a sucker. Conveniently these states are not mutually exclusive and are accurate in describing your actions, wayne.
But you couldn’t make Byron look stupid if you brought an army of sociopaths to help you. He’s way out of your league too, sport.
billywayne:
at least call me stupid in an eloquent manor, like Buddha or Mespo or Gyges or Mike S or Mike A or AY would. Make me work to figure out that you are calling me a dolt.
It’s a poverty of thought to just call someone stupid.
Byron,
Colonel Mustard: Are you trying to make me look stupid in front of the other guests?
Wadsworth: You don’t need any help from me, sir.
Colonel Mustard: That’s right!
Hey now, if I was still duece a noid I would still think that that was directed at me yet again.
Ah ha, I guess it is better to keep my mouth shut than to prove to the world that they were indeed correct and that I have removed any and all doubt.
Oops, I almost did. Swoosh.
Col. Mouseturd in deed.
I asked my attorney friend from Los Angeles to read your juvenile posts Buddha, he “howled” with laughter. “Real” attorneys practice law, they don’t “play” on the internet all day. Thats’ why my friend has “million dollar settlemnts” and you and Byron/Bron marinate in a delusional world of self validation and overt narcissicsm. It must be comforting to know that you found a ready form of “narcissistic supply” in Bron/Byron. You two “trolls” have a nice time tooting your horns. “Sadly”, you both reek of insecurity..
Make sure you share some of that kool-aid with “buddhapest” bron/byron..
Must not have a very good secretary. An attorney worth its weight is balalnced with a secretary that knows more than they!
Too bad your attorney friend has to work. I wonder how much it cost you to talk to him…..
On further reflection, the word “dolt” just dosn’t come to mind when trying to describe you Byron/Bron. “Pusillanamous”, I think is a word that more “accurately” reflects your personality type.
Dolt is a comforting word for you to use Bron/Byron, after all it is only one syllable..
Bron, you used a “curious statement”, that I feel needs clarification(if you can). You stated that pedophiles are a class unto themselves. Pedophilia is defined as a form of sexual paraphilia. It is a form of sexual deviance Bron/Byron. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals are both forms of sexual orientation. What form of sexual orientation is pedophilia Bron? Thrall me with your acumen, as I am such a neophyte in the discipline of behavioral science..
Asked your friend the “T-Rex”, maybe he can provide you with the answer…
Before you answer, make sure you drink plenty of that high-octane kool-aid, buddhapest swears by it..
I can’t wait to go to the UCLA game at the Rose Bowl this weekend. The Ducks are in town for a beating. Go Bruins!
I keep encouraging “buddhapest” to enroll in a psych 101 course at his local community college. I hope he takes it under advisement. The only thing worse than an incompetent attorney, is an ignorant attorney. His inability to understand the clinical defintions and features that are associated with sociopathy and other personality disorders is quite apparent. His ignorance is only eclipsed by his arrogance. Yeah, quite the “wordsmith” that T-Rex…..
AY,
So in front of every great lawyer is a great secretary?
Again, we need to end the personal attacks and attacks on this blog. With so many juvenile blogs to chose from, this is one blog that avoids personal attacks. If someone is attacking you personally, you can contact me. Keep the passion and drop the personal stuff, please.
I will refrain from personal attacks, sorry JT..
Gyges,
Ah yes, the great relationship bridge. A female secretary in front as opposed in your rear. The cause of many a marriage migrations to go south, when the wife catches your secretary mouth near the South Pole.
Not everyone can say I was just getting a Billy.
Clinton that is.
That is funny, don’t you think?
Mr. Turley, I would like to express my feelings of some annoyance. Yes, I have gotten a bit “chippy” in my responses to my fellow-bloggers. Normally, this takes place after I am attacked by buddha, or one of his cronies. They may not agree philosophically or religiously with my position, but the name calling and personal attacks need to stop. Everyone time I get rolling on a thought, a personal attack assails me. I should not respond and move on, but I get sucked into the maladaptive cycle. I want to share” clean” thoughts and ideas with my fellow bloggers. The beauty of your “think tank” is it should have room for many ideas and thoughts from divergent sources. Thankyou for allowing me to dislcose my thoughts, As I don’t have your e-mail, I could not personally e-mail you. You obviously have mine because I use it to post with. Anyways, I want to proceed with maturity and clarity of thought. Thankyou JT, for giving me a forum to express my ideas..
To be clear, JT was referring to ad hominem abusive and not ad hominem circumstantial or ad hominem tu quo que.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Thanks Bob, I don’t get all the latin(never took it in school), but the response is appreciated, thankyou.
Well Bob Esq., et al,
You know, Buddha “lives to be of service” and I of course wake up in the mornings “just to annoy” people. I have not yet made it to “annoy chain.” I am sure I fairly close though.
Yeah, I’m the ring leader against propaganda trolls! When did I get the job? Did I miss an election? Did I lose a bet? Was it the prize in the bottom of my cereal box? Yeah! It’s a good thing I wore green.
More importantly, when did I get cronies and can I claim them as dependents at tax time? Or are they a business expense like henchmen. Any tax law specialists out there that can tackle that one?
Do I get a secret decoder ring?
Buddha,
As the leader, you get the secret CODER ring.
AY,
My apologies for walking your side of the street. Yes, yes I was trying to be annoying.
I’m terribly, terribly sorry.
Really I am.
Gyges,
To quote Monty Burns, “Excellent.”
AY, I just realized that I did not respond to your question about the vow of poverty. As has been noted, that vow is not taken by diocesan priests, but is a requirement for all of the orders of which I am aware. Please keep in mind that my personal experience is limited to my time as a Jesuit novice directly out of high school.
On a spiritual level, the vow of poverty is a rejection of materialism, by which I mean the belief that the acquisition of wealth and its trappings represents the achievement of success as a human being (as often expressed in the familiar refrain of the ’80s and ’90s, “He who dies with the most toys, wins”). At its heart, a commitment to poverty is a commitment to maintain a detachment from material things, recognizing that their value lies solely in the good purposes to which they may be applied. It is an acknowledgment of the belief that life on earth is not the end of existence, but is intended to be preparation for an eternal life after death. A vow of poverty is a personal affirmation of one’s unity with all other persons within the single body of the Church. It is fundamentally a vow of spiritual freedom from whatever might interfere with doing God’s work on earth.
On a practical level, a vow of poverty enables a group of men or women to live their lives in common, each contributing his or her own gifts to the benefit of the whole community. In this sense, it is a prerequisite to life within the purest form of a communist society. (This also explains why communism does not work other than on a micro level; it can only function within relatively small groups of individuals who share the same goals and values, and all of whom are free to leave should they lose that commitment for any reason.)
In short, the vow of poverty provides both spiritual and physical freedom. It makes a great deal of sense in a religious community and it was not something that bothered me in the least (although I also have to admit that at the age of 17 I owned nothing anyway). In all candor my problem was that I concluded that I could not live a celibate existence, and so I left. After many years of marriage and three children, I believe that my decision was the correct one for me, but I still recall that time with great affection.
Ok Gyges and Buddha,
You all ain’t playing fair. I want my share of the booty. I want my very own secret decoder ring or I am going to have to start telling you all about the virtues of the denial of the existence of the holism of the dolts. And if you don’t like that then about the people that are in denial of the existence of extra terrestrial life forms or the reasons why all RCC Priest should not be collectively elevated to sainthood through martyrdom for the existential adaptation of pedophilia and why its not a cardinal sin. Ya hear?
AY,
Subtlety isn’t really your bag is it?
Look, it’s a hamfisted segue.
Gyges,
At the risk of not being misunderstood but what is this word you use call “Subtlety”? I have heard of it but, I profess I have no clue of its application. Its like a whole nother language!!!!!!
Mike A.,
I have a question concerning the beautiful piece you wrote above. When you say: “At its heart, a commitment to poverty is a commitment to maintain a detachment from material things, recognizing that their value lies solely in the good purposes to which they may be applied. It is an acknowledgment of the belief that life on earth is not the end of existence…” I understand the first idea but not the last. How is a vow of poverty connected with life after death? To me, there isn’t any reason for that connection.
Mike A,
Thank you. I am sure you made a much better choice. Considering.
Hi, Jill. Traditional Catholic theology teaches that all persons are called to live sanctified lives, that we are in the world but not of it. In other words, life on earth is intended to be a spiritual journey toward a spiritual destination. Therefore, anything which diverts one’s mind or body from that goal is to be avoided. This belief mandates a rejection of materialism (in my opinion it also mandates a rejection of capitalism, but that is an issue for a different thread). This rejection is expressed in different ways. For example, persons living cloistered lives choose prayer and contemplation as their life’s work. Thomas a Kempis in his “Imitation of Christ” frequently mentions the joy he feels sitting in his cell and pondering the mystery of God. Mother Teresa believed that whatever she had or could acquire must be freely shared with the poorest of the poor because she saw the face of Christ in every human being. So a vow of poverty can be understood as a realization that nothing can be possessed in the sense in which that term is normally understood. Instead, whatever one receives is a gift to be returned. I lack the wisdom and understanding to explain it any better than that, but I hope it helps. BTW, I make no claims to have lived in accordance with these precepts.
Thanks Mike and hello!
From that perspective it makes sense. I hate to think of the world being rejected in favor of an afterlife. This is beautiful planet and friendships, kindness, creativity, and intelligence all abide here. It is difficult for me to understand why the world and the things of it are considered inadequate in many religious traditions. In fact, this ideology often seems destructive of human values, allowing us to treat both the earth and each other very poorly.
To be clear, I am not saying you treat others this way. In fact, I would say the opposite. I am talking about a general trend to devalue human/planetary existence, the hurrying along to the afterlife that animates so much cruelty in religion.
Jill:
well said
Jill, I agree with you. I do not believe that a healthy religious viewpoint rejects the beauty of the world or the duty to protect it.
billywayne:
didnt Sylvestor the cat use the word pusillanimous in a cartoon? Sufferin’ Succotash!
Rabbis generally rape young peoples minds not their rear ends.
“Rabbis generally rape young peoples minds”
Commoner,
Care to back that up? After 390 comments, what is its’ relevance?