Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-03-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(10-03-2015 12:48 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Here’s another “saintly” Catholic/Franciscan Rolleyes

To Some in California, Founder of Church Missions Is Far From Saint

"Born in Majorca in 1713, Father Serra joined the Franciscan order in 1730. He became an eminent theological professor before relinquishing his comfortable life to evangelize in the Americas. From 1769 to 1835, 90,000 Indians were baptized along the West Coast, from San Diego to San Francisco. Once baptized, they were not allowed to leave the missions, and those who did escape were rounded up by soldiers and returned.

The Indians were forced to shed their languages, dress, religion, food and marriage customs. Thousands died from exposure to European diseases to which they had no immunity. Of the approximately 310,000 Indians in 1769 in what is now California, only one-sixth remained a hundred years later, according to a University of California historian.”

“They (the Indians) were especially upset when, in 1986, the Catholic Diocese of Monterey, Calif., where Father Serra is buried at the Carmel Mission, released a report that found no evidence of Indian mistreatment. While diocesan researchers released statements from historians and clergy, no Indians were interviewed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/to-....html?_r=0

I went to Mission Carmel just last year Blush It's pretty. But yeah there's no real mention about all native Americans. just that they were converted. Facepalm

All the missions (in the area) allegedly have a peice of Father Junípero Serra.

We also used to have a statue of him in our backyard.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-03-2015, 05:59 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2015 02:46 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(09-03-2015 11:17 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 07:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's "literally" dear. Adverbs end in "ly", which you will learn when you go get an education.


Jebus has done so much for you, I see.


Prove it. (And BTW, that's not what your idiotic John Jay Law School report said, that YOU referenced. So which is it ? )
It's not "pedophelia, dear. It's spelled "pedophilia".
You know SO much about it, and you can't even fucking spell it. Laughat
The pedo problem exists in all countries not just the US, dear. Obviously you know NOTHING about the huge mess also in Ireland and many other countries.
Nice try at the same ole same ole attempt at dismissing the problem. There is no evidence the victims were the initiators. In fact there is a mountain of evidence they were not.

Quote: It's "literally" dear. Adverbs end in "ly", which you will learn when you go get an education.

Check your grammar, bud, that's not the right usage.


Quote:Prove it. (And BTW, that's not what your idiotic John Jay Law School report said, that YOU referenced. So which is it ? )
It's not "pedophelia, dear. It's spelled "pedophilia".
You know SO much about it, and you can't even fucking spell it. Laughat
The pedo problem exists in all countries not just the US, dear. Obviously you know NOTHING about the huge mess also in Ireland and many other countries.
Nice try at the same ole same ole attempt at dismissing the problem. There is no evidence the victims were the initiators. In fact there is a mountain of evidence they were not.

When did I ever say that the victims were the initiators? I said that this happened because of the massive 'outage' so to speak of sodomites during the Sexual Revolution. Although, if you dispute this, could you mind explaining why this wasn't even an issue 'until' the Sexual Revolution happened.

It seems as though, according to PP, "the Sexual Revolution" has been going on for a while now. Those goddam secularists with their penises and affection for little boys' bottoms obviously keep polluting the ranks of the Catholic clergy....yet...

Sexual abuse of children and young adolescents by Catholic priests and monks has been documented since the medieval era, when it was commonplace. Bishops weren’t as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today, so it was openly discussed with the public. At the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, it was decided
“Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.” (http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm). Withholding communion may have been a big deal in the fourth century, but that would hardly have deterred any offenders.

At the third Lateran council of 1138 CE, it was decided that clerics who engaged in pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy) were to be dismissed from the clerical state or else confined to monasteries to do penance, but in practice, perpetrators were rarely punished.

Defenseless kids had few rights and no one in power willing to help them, and their parents were in a similar position. It’s not surprising that pedophilia was often almost regarded as part of a cleric’s job if the priest was so inclined, and the legislation didn’t deter them. In some monasteries, monks’ “lapses” with boys were so commonplace they were endemic.

One of the reasons Martin Luther rejected mandatory celibacy was he knew that Catholic clerics commonly had sexual relations with other men, women, and children.

In the 1950’s, Reverend Gerald Fitzgerald, a Catholic priest, founded “the Servants of the Paraclete,” an order that tried to rehabilitate errant priests with psycho-social problems. They ran treatment facilities in New Mexico, Missouri and California. Their existence was well known to all US bishops. Reverend Fitzgerald thought he could help priests with drug and alcohol issues, but soon lost confidence in his ability to change pedophile priests’ behavior. In 1957, Reverend Fitzgerald wrote to Archbishop Edwin Byrne that he thought it unwise to
“offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”

Reverend Fitzgerald went on,
“If I were a bishop, I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization. Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and the neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here…They should ipso facto be reduced to laymen when they act thus.”

Reverend Fitzgerald had discovered for himself what most of the world now knows: pedophiles are usually unstoppably recidivist. He told the Vatican that pedophile activity among Catholic priests was rampant. (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Senior-...lfounded).

One of Reverend Fitzgerald’s suggested solutions was that the Vatican could acquire a deserted Caribbean island to exile the offenders. This idea was ignored, probably because priests on a deserted island could only drain the church’s coffers, and would have been hard to explain to the world’s press. Reverend Fitzgerald was trying to protect children, yet he should have recommended a criminal trial for pedophile offenders.

PP, you wrote
"Although, if you dispute this, could you mind explaining why this wasn't even an issue 'until' the Sexual Revolution happened."

Which "Sexual Revolution" might you be referring to? The one in the 300's CE? The one in the 1100's CE? The one in Martin Luther's time? The one in the 1950s? Or the one in the 1960s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's plus?

It seems that there has always been a sexual revolution in secularist society that the Catholic Church would like to blame for all their paedophiles!

Has it occurred to you that just maybe your blessed sacred Catholic Church has always been a mecca for paedophiles, and in particular homosexual paedophiles? There was (until recently) no better safe haven, if you were a child molester, than the priestly garb of the RC church.

Wake up to reality you pathetic fanboy. Your church has been running a worldwide sanctuary for paedophiles. Your church is evil.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
11-03-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(09-03-2015 11:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  Oi Petrov, given that your jolly old popes were prone to toasting people - heretics, and given the doctrine of infallibility, what's the deal? Were they wrong or right? Did those heretics deserve death, according to you? Obviously according to *me* those popey types were crazy power mad nincompoops but I'm interested to see what you say on the matter.
Quote:Oi Petrov, given that your jolly old popes were prone to toasting people - heretics, and given the doctrine of infallibility, what's the deal?

Well, if you actually studied the doctrine for five minutes, you would know that he's not infallible unless he's speaking ex cathedra, the infallibility didn't spread to stuff they said and did normally.

Quote:Did those heretics deserve death, according to you?

Yup.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 04:39 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(09-03-2015 11:54 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 11:24 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Well, actually, I am blaming it on the secular world, because the Sexual Revolution was the secular world's fault in the first place.

Ironic since it was the churches sexual repression as outlined by them...

I love the early church stories of orgies and brothels right there in the Vatican. Church leaders were their only customers, especially the Pope. They were essentially employed by the Catholic church and taxed. Church made a ton...what they weren't pillaging and stealing of course...

Ahhhh the good old days eh?

They would tell their flock not to masturbate while the very priests were getting it on all the time.

I find it so adorable that you blame the sexual revolution for the church's troubles.

It started with the very first pope.

I see you get your history from the back of a cereal box. Yes, things like that happened in Churches at the whims of corrupt Church officials, but it was nowhere near as prevalent as you made it out to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(10-03-2015 11:00 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(07-03-2015 06:54 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Oh, I'm well aware of that. The pedophelia problem in the Church in the U.S. is less pre-pubescent pedophelia, and more of a post-pubescent homosexual problem. Not that that's our fault either, you can thank your precious Sexual Revolution for all the faggots that just 'coincidentally' happen to also be pedos infiltrating the Church's ranks in the U.S.

First, pedophilia is distinctly different from homosexuality. Any overlap is coincidence, the same as overlap with heterosexuality (and the fact that it's prevalent in both really should tell you something...)

Second, since you blame the "sexual revolution" for homosexuality, please tell me again when the animal kingdom had its sexual revolution. Consider

Quote:First, pedophilia is distinctly different from homosexuality. Any overlap is coincidence

No, it's really not. They make up such a large margin of cases, while still only being a small minority of the world's population.

Quote:Second, since you blame the "sexual revolution" for homosexuality, please tell me again when the animal kingdom had its sexual revolution. Consider

I think you fail to realize that humans are different than animals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 04:45 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(11-03-2015 04:42 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(10-03-2015 11:00 AM)Impulse Wrote:  First, pedophilia is distinctly different from homosexuality. Any overlap is coincidence, the same as overlap with heterosexuality (and the fact that it's prevalent in both really should tell you something...)

Second, since you blame the "sexual revolution" for homosexuality, please tell me again when the animal kingdom had its sexual revolution. Consider

Quote:First, pedophilia is distinctly different from homosexuality. Any overlap is coincidence

No, it's really not. They make up such a large margin of cases, while still only being a small minority of the world's population.

Quote:Second, since you blame the "sexual revolution" for homosexuality, please tell me again when the animal kingdom had its sexual revolution. Consider

I think you fail to realize that humans are different than animals.

You're a persistent little monkey.
Wrong, but persistent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
11-03-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(10-03-2015 05:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(09-03-2015 11:17 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Check your grammar, bud, that's not the right usage.



When did I ever say that the victims were the initiators? I said that this happened because of the massive 'outage' so to speak of sodomites during the Sexual Revolution. Although, if you dispute this, could you mind explaining why this wasn't even an issue 'until' the Sexual Revolution happened.

It seems as though, according to PP, "the Sexual Revolution" has been going on for a while now. Those goddam secularists with their penises and affection for little boys' bottoms obviously keep polluting the ranks of the Catholic clergy....yet...

Sexual abuse of children and young adolescents by Catholic priests and monks has been documented since the medieval era, when it was commonplace. Bishops weren’t as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today, so it was openly discussed with the public. At the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, it was decided
“Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.” (http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm). Withholding communion may have been a big deal in the fourth century, but that would hardly have deterred any offenders.

At the third Lateran council of 1138 CE, it was decided that clerics who engaged in pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy) were to be dismissed from the clerical state or else confined to monasteries to do penance, but in practice, perpetrators were rarely punished.

Defenseless kids had few rights and no one in power willing to help them, and their parents were in a similar position. It’s not surprising that pedophilia was often almost regarded as part of a cleric’s job if the priest was so inclined, and the legislation didn’t deter them. In some monasteries, monks’ “lapses” with boys were so commonplace they were endemic.

One of the reasons Martin Luther rejected mandatory celibacy was he knew that Catholic clerics commonly had sexual relations with other men, women, and children.

In the 1950’s, Reverend Gerald Fitzgerald, a Catholic priest, founded “the Servants of the Paraclete,” an order that tried to rehabilitate errant priests with psycho-social problems. They ran treatment facilities in New Mexico, Missouri and California. Their existence was well known to all US bishops. Reverend Fitzgerald thought he could help priests with drug and alcohol issues, but soon lost confidence in his ability to change pedophile priests’ behavior. In 1957, Reverend Fitzgerald wrote to Archbishop Edwin Byrne that he thought it unwise to
“offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”

Reverend Fitzgerald went on,
“If I were a bishop, I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization. Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and the neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here…They should ipso facto be reduced to laymen when they act thus.”

Reverend Fitzgerald had discovered for himself what most of the world now knows: pedophiles are usually unstoppably recidivist. He told the Vatican that pedophile activity among Catholic priests was rampant. (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Senior-...lfounded).

One of Reverend Fitzgerald’s suggested solutions was that the Vatican could acquire a deserted Caribbean island to exile the offenders. This idea was ignored, probably because priests on a deserted island could only drain the church’s coffers, and would have been hard to explain to the world’s press. Reverend Fitzgerald was trying to protect children, yet he should have recommended a criminal trial for pedophile offenders.

PP, you wrote
"Although, if you dispute this, could you mind explaining why this wasn't even an issue 'until' the Sexual Revolution happened."

Which "Sexual Revolution" might you be referring to? The one in the 300's CE? The one in the 1100's CE? The one in Martin Luther's time? The one in the 1950s? Or the one in the 1960s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's plus?

It seems that there has always been a sexual revolution in secularist society that the Catholic Church would like to blame for all their paedophiles!

Has it occurred to you that just maybe your blessed sacred Catholic Church has always been a mecca for paedophiles, and in particular homosexual paedophiles? There was (until recently) no better safe haven, if you were a child molester, than the priestly garb of the RC church.

Wake up to reality you pathetic fanboy. Your church has been running a worldwide sanctuary for paedophiles. Your church is evil.


Quote:It seems as though, according to PP, "the Sexual Revolution" has been going on for a while now. Those goddam secularists with their penises and affection for little boys' bottoms obviously keep polluting the ranks of the Catholic clergy....yet...

Sexual abuse of children and young adolescents by Catholic priests and monks has been documented since the medieval era, when it was commonplace. Bishops weren’t as preoccupied with secrecy as they are today, so it was openly discussed with the public. At the Synod of Elvira in 306 CE, it was decided
“Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.” (http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/elvira.htm). Withholding communion may have been a big deal in the fourth century, but that would hardly have deterred any offenders.

At the third Lateran council of 1138 CE, it was decided that clerics who engaged in pederasty (sexual activity between a man and a boy) were to be dismissed from the clerical state or else confined to monasteries to do penance

I fail to see how the Councils banning pederasty is equivalent to them admitting it was an epidemic.

Quote:but in practice, perpetrators were rarely punished.

Defenseless kids had few rights and no one in power willing to help them, and their parents were in a similar position. It’s not surprising that pedophilia was often almost regarded as part of a cleric’s job if the priest was so inclined, and the legislation didn’t deter them. In some monasteries, monks’ “lapses” with boys were so commonplace they were endemic.

I would ask for a source on this, considering that you have a nasty habit of posting links that don't work.

Quote: One of the reasons Martin Luther rejected mandatory celibacy was he knew that Catholic clerics commonly had sexual relations with other men, women, and children.

What, you mean that one guy who's Protestant Revolution ended up destroying Christendom, and killing hundreds of thousands? Why would I care about what that heretic had to say?

Quote:In the 1950’s, Reverend Gerald Fitzgerald, a Catholic priest, founded “the Servants of the Paraclete,” an order that tried to rehabilitate errant priests with psycho-social problems. They ran treatment facilities in New Mexico, Missouri and California. Their existence was well known to all US bishops. Reverend Fitzgerald thought he could help priests with drug and alcohol issues, but soon lost confidence in his ability to change pedophile priests’ behavior. In 1957, Reverend Fitzgerald wrote to Archbishop Edwin Byrne that he thought it unwise to
“offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls.”


Not that it makes it right, but you do realize that sending sexual abusers to get psychiatric treatment instead of sending them to jail was the standard method of dealing with that sort of thing back in the 50's, right? Everyone did it, businesses, schools, ect.

Quote:Which "Sexual Revolution" might you be referring to? The one in the 300's CE? The one in the 1100's CE? The one in Martin Luther's time? The one in the 1950s? Or the one in the 1960s, 70's, 80's, 90's and 2000's plus?

The one that succeeded, sadly, in the 60's.

Quote:Has it occurred to you that just maybe your blessed sacred Catholic Church has always been a mecca for paedophiles, and in particular homosexual paedophiles?.

Has it occurred to you that you're completely fucking insane?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2015, 06:28 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(11-03-2015 04:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
Quote:Did those heretics deserve death, according to you?

Yup.

And you wonder why anyone would oppose a theocracy? Consider

You are religiously insane. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
11-03-2015, 06:30 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(11-03-2015 06:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(11-03-2015 04:38 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Yup.

And you wonder why anyone would oppose a theocracy? Consider

You are religiously insane. Drinking Beverage

I think his insanity is much less specific in nature. Girl_nails

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
11-03-2015, 07:20 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(11-03-2015 04:42 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  No, it's really not. They make up such a large margin of cases, while still only being a small minority of the world's population.

All (or at least most) pedophiles have ears. Ears are to blame for pedophilia. That's your logic. Drinking Beverage

(11-03-2015 04:42 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  I think you fail to realize that humans are different than animals.

Not in any way that matters to this discussion. Humans are really just a different species of animal anyway if you understand evolution.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: