Protest forming against ground zero mosque

[JScott]

"The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

And here we go.. an almost 50 year old unsubstantiated document that no credible news organization or investigation has deemed as legitimate

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

Hmmm... funny, even 'The guardian', known for it's extremist left-wing writings, knows there is no concrete proof of the allegation

In addition.. no other news or investigative organization has corroborated this story... the only other references to the 'document' are mirrors of the story on winger sites and blogs

What next, a link to a Weekly World News story? I know... some "Dan Brown" proof or something from the Priory of Sion?... LOL

Look.. I am no fan of the Catholic church and there have been many instances through the ages of wrongdoings and a lust for power.... but you have an unsubstantiated claim that you have bought.. hook, line, and sinker because you WANT it to be true

Too many coincidences are not a coincidence.

 

[JScott]

Just because people have the "right" to do something doesn't make it right. I am getting sick and tired of the confusion some have between "approriate" and "legal". This is clearly not appropriate, yet idealogues refuse to say so. No wonder this country is so effed up.

Maybe they feel they should be a part of the healing process. Maybe they want to show they arent the monsters so many of you make them out to be.

 

[JScott]

Again... an analogy does not equate the subjects of the analogy to be the same... you are about as STUPID as they come... an analogy can equate the situation or action... much like the OTHER examples given with meat packing plants, PLO, etc

How are these Americans putting up a mosque related to 9E? You say you're comparing the "action" so how is building the mosque an action comparable to a terrorist attack? You say you're comparing the "situation" so how does Americans building a mosque become comparable to the situation of a terrorist attack? You obviously don't know how to use analogies.

Jesus Christ you are dense

Just as the people in a PLO office that could be built in Lockerbie would not have anything inherently to do with the flight 103 bombing, those who want to build this mosque do not inherently have anything to do with the events of 9/11

The building of the mosque was not compared to the terrorist attack... but nice try

The action of placing a building that is representative of a group that could offend by association, next to a site where the bad event happened is what is being compared... Having something that is representative or offense or can be compared to a situation next to a specific site.... Just as noted when I also said placing a meat packing plant next to a PETA office, while legal, is not really a good or right thing to do... Just like purposely building a liquor store next to Alcoholics Anonymous official office would not be very good, even though that liquor store owner and the liquor within his store did not cause the actions of alcoholics in the past... an oven factory next to Auschwitz would be in bad taste..

You are a ******* buffoon

Do you really think thats how the world of business works? Location, location, location. It doesnt matter what is sitting next to the business as long as they can make money. I highly doubt many businesses worry about their neighbors.

Son of a ***** youre stupid. Had to add that

 

[JScott]

Who let the Bigot Train into this forum?

 

[JBeukema]

When 100% of the terrorists share the same religion, it ceases to be a stereotype and becomes a descriptor of the perpetrators.

let me know when that happens

Hi, you have received -23 reputation points from Lonestar_logic.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
**** you!!

Regards,
Lonestar_logic

Note: This is an automated message.

Apparently LL is upset because the facts don't fit all the anti-muslim rhetoric

 

[JBeukema]

Muslims destroyed the WTC and killed 3000 persons on 9/11/2001. I thought this was obvious, but stupid is obviously at pandemic levels.

And Christians slaughtered millions in Europe.


What's your point?


How many people do Whites kill every year?

Hi, you have received -38 reputation points from DiamondDave.
Reputation was given for this post.

.

you people really hate reality, don't you?

 

[JBeukema]

You're a fuxxing idiot. I already posted a link showing some first responders and 9E Families fully support the mosque being built.

You bigots are the ones saying **** you america and you're so damn stoopid you don't realize why.

what the hell are you using for brains? That doesn't make any sense.

You're throwing a 24 carat tantrum because we think it's incredibly stupid to honor terrorists and evil shits by building a shrine to their religion on the very site where they incinerated over 2000 INNOCENT civilians?

Bigots? You have no idea what the term means, and make yourself look twice the ingrate. Are you even a citizen? Lemme guess, you were one of the many we saw on TV dancing in the street when the towers fell.

Jackhole.

Not quite true, Fitz, but the title of the article/thread is misleading and the article itself does not make the truth clear. The truth is they are not going to build on ground zero. They want to build two blocks away and quite frankly, I didn't see anything that said anything at all about this being a memorial in any way, shape or form to either terrorists or victims although I will admit I have not researched that part.

They simply want to build a community center in Manhattan and they actually own the land. The fact that the land is two blocks away from ground zero is not their fault.

As I stated when I got into the terribly long (and now nearly pointless) thread if they wanted to build on ground zero, I'd be having a shit fit. That would be a slap in the face to all Americans as far as I am concerned. But, this is not on ground zero. This is not even about 9/11. It is about the rights of Muslims to build a place of worship in Manhattan. How far do you think they should have to be from ground zero? One mile? ten? Twenty? One Hundred?

Do we tell them that because of what some terrorist bastards did nine years ago that their religious freedoms are now null and void? Believe me, I think there are some people who believe we should, but that too is a slap in the face to all Americans. It is similar, in my opinion, to the right of free speech. If I believe in the right of other Americans to say pretty much whatever they want, I have to be willing to hear things that I don't want to hear. I have to be willing to let racists speak their mind. I don't have to like what they are saying and I don't have to listen, but I have to let them say it. Same thing applies in the case of freedom of or from religion. If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

 

[JBeukema]

If I believe that this country practices freedom of religion then I have to be willing to allow other religions to flourish and practice their faith. I don't have to join them. I don't have to like them or their beliefs, but I do have to allow them to practice their faith as long as they don't begin sacrificing humans.

Immie

Islam is not a religion

:etf:

 

[JBeukema]

When we throw away liberty and equality before the law and become like Iran, those who seek to destroy America have won.

 

[CurveLight]

With all of this whining about a mosque going up and proximity to GZ and how it's inappropriate......for you people whining from those angles....a quick question.

Have you ever in your life ever bitched about American sports teams being named after the Native Americans we slaughtered?

 

[Immanuel]

I believe that Guardian link states the document has already been authenticated but no worries, here is the CBS link again:

Http://www.wap.cbsnews.com/site?sid=cbsnews&pid=sections.detail&storyId=6349927&index=1

If the link doesn't work just google the article title:

Vatican Fights to Keep the Pope Out of Court.

The Vatican is trying to argue the document does not forbid clergy from going to the police but it's smoke and mirrors as it gives specific instructions on the secrecy. We even have current evidence this is exactly what happened as victims were forced to silence in an irish church. We also have another order of silence that was put out in 2001:

"While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely undunderstood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities."
Http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-03-20-church-abuse-pope_N.htm

So we have two different documents ordering secrecy and proof of Catholic clergy following those orders.

Who the hell can deny these facts with a straight face?

I saw your other two links after I made my post. I did not comment on them because I had already made my comments and didn't feel that the other links shined any more light on the situation.

I still do not believe that the whole story is being told here. As they say, there are two sides to every story. That is not to say you are wrong on your side, but I have read a little of the Church's side of the story as well. I would have to know more about what the documents say as opposed to what we are being told they say before I trust the media. Since I don't read Latin, I would think a translation would suffice, don't you? Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Someone earlier posted that the 1962 letter was an obscure letter that most priests didn't even know about. Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that it says whatever it says. If it says what we are told (by the media) then, for lack of a better word, that sucks! But again, what did it really say?

Immie

That still isn't addressing the fact we have proven cases of sex abuse being kept secret and victims who were forced to sign a vow of silence.

Nor does it address the fact we already have Catholic Bishops saying they understood the order of silence was by threat of excommunication.

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

You're a pure idiot. Do you truly believe all msm hops on what some of us would believe to be "big stories?" Are you that brainwashed? I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a **** if you are honest about it or not. What I will point out is how the msm largely ignored the fact that Fox won a legal battle for the right to lie while claiming to report the "news." People like you accused me of all sorts of things because you couldn't find any coverage on the msm so based off those idiotic assumptions they accused me of lying until i tracked down the actual court dockets so they could see them.

Wake the **** up. The msm is not your information friend.

Wake the **** up.. posting a link to a lawsuit and an unvalidated conclusion about documents and an alleged cover up is not proof...

You have proven there are lawsuits... you have not proven your cover-up claim... nor have the plaintiffs in the court cases

I've further proven the order on secrecy and don't give a **** if you are honest about it or not

You have proven that an order exists. The church doesn't even deny that fact. That tells me that there was something there, but what?

What you have not proven is what the order says in its entirety. Taken out of context that order is frightful to say the least, but what was the actual context? What did the order actually say in regards to the authorities and the crimes that were committed? Was the order of silence in regards to the counseling and confidentiality of minors that did not prevent the clergy from going to the authorities or were they strictly forbidden to even discuss the issue with the authorities as well?

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

I saw your other two links after I made my post. I did not comment on them because I had already made my comments and didn't feel that the other links shined any more light on the situation.

I still do not believe that the whole story is being told here. As they say, there are two sides to every story. That is not to say you are wrong on your side, but I have read a little of the Church's side of the story as well. I would have to know more about what the documents say as opposed to what we are being told they say before I trust the media. Since I don't read Latin, I would think a translation would suffice, don't you? Wouldn't that be fun to read?

Someone earlier posted that the 1962 letter was an obscure letter that most priests didn't even know about. Sorry, that doesn't change the fact that it says whatever it says. If it says what we are told (by the media) then, for lack of a better word, that sucks! But again, what did it really say?

Immie

That still isn't addressing the fact we have proven cases of sex abuse being kept secret and victims who were forced to sign a vow of silence.

Nor does it address the fact we already have Catholic Bishops saying they understood the order of silence was by threat of excommunication.

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The ******* Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

 

[Immanuel]

That still isn't addressing the fact we have proven cases of sex abuse being kept secret and victims who were forced to sign a vow of silence.

Nor does it address the fact we already have Catholic Bishops saying they understood the order of silence was by threat of excommunication.

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The ******* Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

A translation of what the order actually said.

12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children? The jerk got off easy.

And by the way, I already stated that the church has admitted the existence of the order. Again, what does the order actually say? That is my question. Not how some attorney (who more than likely doesn't even read Latin) interpreted it. Not what the media wants to report. Not even what some Cardinal apologized for regarding his interpretation of the order. What was the context of that order?

If the Pope admitted it in the third article you linked, I didn't read all of those articles. That was the one that came from the church and the first couple paragraphs were "explanations" read as excuses. So, I have missed the Pope's admission. Might go back and read that in a couple of hours since I am in the middle of something else at the moment and just stopping in to keep up.

Oh and by the way, I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to the Pope. Maybe you do? I find his office to be... well, let's not go there, it got Luther in a hell of a lot of trouble that I would rather not get myself into.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The ******* Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

A translation of what the order actually said.

12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children? The jerk got off easy.

And by the way, I already stated that the church has admitted the existence of the order. Again, what does the order actually say? That is my question. Not how some attorney (who more than likely doesn't even read Latin) interpreted it. Not what the media wants to report. Not even what some Cardinal apologized for regarding his interpretation of the order. What was the context of that order?

If the Pope admitted it in the third article you linked, I didn't read all of those articles. That was the one that came from the church and the first couple paragraphs were "explanations" read as excuses. So, I have missed the Pope's admission. Might go back and read that in a couple of hours since I am in the middle of something else at the moment and just stopping in to keep up.

Oh and by the way, I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to the Pope. Maybe you do? I find his office to be... well, let's not go there, it got Luther in a hell of a lot of trouble that I would rather not get myself into.

Immie

So let's see.....you claimed the only evidence I've presented is an attorney and the media.....then follow that up by admitting you've not read all the evidence I've presented. Do ya really need me to spell it out?

 

[Immanuel]

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The ******* Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

A translation of what the order actually said.

12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children? The jerk got off easy.

And by the way, I already stated that the church has admitted the existence of the order. Again, what does the order actually say? That is my question. Not how some attorney (who more than likely doesn't even read Latin) interpreted it. Not what the media wants to report. Not even what some Cardinal apologized for regarding his interpretation of the order. What was the context of that order?

If the Pope admitted it in the third article you linked, I didn't read all of those articles. That was the one that came from the church and the first couple paragraphs were "explanations" read as excuses. So, I have missed the Pope's admission. Might go back and read that in a couple of hours since I am in the middle of something else at the moment and just stopping in to keep up.

Oh and by the way, I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to the Pope. Maybe you do? I find his office to be... well, let's not go there, it got Luther in a hell of a lot of trouble that I would rather not get myself into.

Immie

So let's see.....you claimed the only evidence I've presented is an attorney and the media.....then follow that up by admitting you've not read all the evidence I've presented. Do ya really need me to spell it out?

Do you need to have the word "proof" defined for you? That was what my initial statement said. If you would like I can post a link to the definition of "proof". You have presented none.

I have seen no proof of any of your allegations except that an order exists. This order supposedly states (according to an attorney and the media) that Catholic clergy should promote the sexual abuse of children by their silence. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

edit: by the way, you have presented "evidence" to back up your claim. You have not proven your claim. That is something I have never been able to get through to TruthMatters. You present evidence. The evidence by itself is not proof. I certainly hope, I won't have to go through all the trouble I have gone through with TM to get that point through to you. I believe you are better able to understand that than she is, at least I hope you are.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

A translation of what the order actually said.

12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children? The jerk got off easy.

And by the way, I already stated that the church has admitted the existence of the order. Again, what does the order actually say? That is my question. Not how some attorney (who more than likely doesn't even read Latin) interpreted it. Not what the media wants to report. Not even what some Cardinal apologized for regarding his interpretation of the order. What was the context of that order?

If the Pope admitted it in the third article you linked, I didn't read all of those articles. That was the one that came from the church and the first couple paragraphs were "explanations" read as excuses. So, I have missed the Pope's admission. Might go back and read that in a couple of hours since I am in the middle of something else at the moment and just stopping in to keep up.

Oh and by the way, I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to the Pope. Maybe you do? I find his office to be... well, let's not go there, it got Luther in a hell of a lot of trouble that I would rather not get myself into.

Immie

So let's see.....you claimed the only evidence I've presented is an attorney and the media.....then follow that up by admitting you've not read all the evidence I've presented. Do ya really need me to spell it out?

Do you need to have the word "proof" defined for you? That was what my initial statement said. If you would like I can post a link to the definition of "proof". You have presented none.

I have seen no proof of any of your allegations except that an order exists. This order supposedly states (according to an attorney and the media) that Catholic clergy should promote the sexual abuse of children by their silence. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

edit: by the way, you have presented "evidence" to back up your claim. You have not proven your claim. That is something I have never been able to get through to TruthMatters. You present evidence. The evidence by itself is not proof. I certainly hope, I won't have to go through all the trouble I have gone through with TM to get that point through to you. I believe you are better able to understand that then she is, at least I hope you are.

Immie

You're looking for proof of a claim I've not made. I've been pointing out nothing more than the policy of keeping sex abuse cases a secret. The Pope himself recently admitted that is the Vatican's Policy.

Your strawman of promoting sexual abuse by silence is bullshit.

I've presented evidence in many forms including a ******* Cardinal apologizing for his role in covering up sexual abuse and having victims sign vows of silence. Does that sound vaguely familiar? Doesn't that sound a lot like what the order states as well as the 2001 letter from the Vatican that was sent to Bishops on a global scale.

**** your bullshit snobbery about "hoping" you won't need to explain "proof." I've been softer on you than others because I though you were a bit mentally challenged and rather congenial. **** that.

Proof is nothing more than sufficient evidence fuckwad. I've provided evidence by factual evidence the orders exist, that the 1962 order was in effect until it was updated by the Vatican in 2001, a Cardinal apologizing for doing what the order stated, bishops affirming they understood violating the order meant excommunication, actual convictions and confessions, and the damn Pope himself admitting the policy. But in your fucked up world that is somehow insufficient evidence. You then ***** about an english translation. Why? If I post it the next thing you'll do is demand several international courts certifying the translation is accurate and even if I could do that you'd then claim I need to produce a critically acclaimed rap album by Kevin "Lovin' Mah Trailurr Park" Federline. Why? Because with people like you there is always a delusional justification available to keep your eyes closed.

 

[Immanuel]

That still isn't addressing the fact we have proven cases of sex abuse being kept secret and victims who were forced to sign a vow of silence.

Nor does it address the fact we already have Catholic Bishops saying they understood the order of silence was by threat of excommunication.

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The {edit for inappropriateness} Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

I'm having a problem finding where exactly the Pope admitted this was Vatican policy.

I see by this link that the Pope condemns the actions:

Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe - USATODAY.com

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities.

In particular, the so-called Murphy report faulted the 2001 secrecy letter penned by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a quarter-century before becoming pope, making him the most informed Vatican official about the global scale of clerical abuse.

In that role, he denounced the "filth" in the priesthood and initiated what has amounted to a crackdown on predatory priests, demanding a policy of zero tolerance from his bishops. As pope, he has met with American, Australian and Canadian victims of abuse, offering them comfort and apologies.
I know there was another link that you provided that I thought it might have been in, but I don't remember how far back it was.

What exactly are you saying the Pope admitted was church policy? Hiding information from the authorities or what is stated here: "the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police."

What exactly did the Pope admit?

And again, I'm not defending the church. I'm simply asking questions.

I think you assume the worst case against the church and have accepted that whatever the media says is gospel in this case.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

I didn't address your points because right now, I am not arguing for or against them. I don't know enough about that order from the Pope to really say one way or another. Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media. Neither one of whom I would trust to tell me the truth if my life depended on it or even the first fifty cents in my check book for that matter.

There have been allegations and lawsuits against some of the clergy. I am not sure there have been any convictions to date and I am not going to go look it up either.

I am not a member of the Catholic Church and I find the entire issue to be absolutely un-Christlike. I believe any leader of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter convicted of molestation of children should be punished as any other convicted child molester. I also believe that the church should turn them in before they are even arrested if the church knows about it. I do not support the idea of hiding information such as this from the authorities, but I do support the idea of members of the clergy maintaining confidentiality. If I knew more of what that order actually said, I would have more to say about the issue.

I know that has never kept my fingers still before, but in this case I simply don't know who to believe.

Again, I don't think we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from either the attorney, the media or the church.

Immie

You stated:

"Right now all you have is the word of an attorney... and the media."

That is absolutely false. On top of Bishops affirming the order, on top of this being factually proven in the recent Irish case where:


"Yesterday, the head of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, apologised for his role in covering up abuse after admitting being present at two closed tribunals to discuss abuse allegations against Father Brendan Smyth.

Smyth died in prison while serving 12 years for 74 sexual assaults on children."
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse

....on top of all of that do you know what else I have?

The {edit for inappropriateness} Pope admitting it is a Vatican policy. You've even quoted my post with the link quoting his admission.

What the hell else would be required?

I'm having a problem finding where exactly the Pope admitted this was Vatican policy.

I see by this link that the Pope condemns the actions:

Pope blasts Irish bishops, orders Vatican probe - USATODAY.com

While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger penned a 2001 letter instructing bishops around the world to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep the church investigations secret under threat of excommunication. While the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police, Irish bishops have said the letter was widely understood to mean they shouldn't report the cases to civil authorities.

In particular, the so-called Murphy report faulted the 2001 secrecy letter penned by then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a quarter-century before becoming pope, making him the most informed Vatican official about the global scale of clerical abuse.

In that role, he denounced the "filth" in the priesthood and initiated what has amounted to a crackdown on predatory priests, demanding a policy of zero tolerance from his bishops. As pope, he has met with American, Australian and Canadian victims of abuse, offering them comfort and apologies.
I know there was another link that you provided that I thought it might have been in, but I don't remember how far back it was.

What exactly are you saying the Pope admitted was church policy? Hiding information from the authorities or what is stated here: "the Vatican insists that secrecy rule only applied to the church's investigation and didn't preclude reporting abuse to police."

What exactly did the Pope admit?

And again, I'm not defending the church. I'm simply asking questions.

I think you assume the worst case against the church and have accepted that whatever the media says is gospel in this case.

Immie

You're a fuckstick. You just got done blasting me for saying the pope shouldn't be believed but you cite the pope to claim he condemned what happened.

Unlike you, I haven't simply "gone by the media." Hell, hardly anything I've supplied has been speculation by the media. I live in Boston so I've been studying this issue for quite a few years so you can **** off with your assumptions I simply accept what the "media" says. You've just proven your hypocrisy.

 

[Immanuel]

So let's see.....you claimed the only evidence I've presented is an attorney and the media.....then follow that up by admitting you've not read all the evidence I've presented. Do ya really need me to spell it out?

Do you need to have the word "proof" defined for you? That was what my initial statement said. If you would like I can post a link to the definition of "proof". You have presented none.

I have seen no proof of any of your allegations except that an order exists. This order supposedly states (according to an attorney and the media) that Catholic clergy should promote the sexual abuse of children by their silence. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

edit: by the way, you have presented "evidence" to back up your claim. You have not proven your claim. That is something I have never been able to get through to TruthMatters. You present evidence. The evidence by itself is not proof. I certainly hope, I won't have to go through all the trouble I have gone through with TM to get that point through to you. I believe you are better able to understand that then she is, at least I hope you are.

Immie

You're looking for proof of a claim I've not made. I've been pointing out nothing more than the policy of keeping sex abuse cases a secret. The Pope himself recently admitted that is the Vatican's Policy.

Your strawman of promoting sexual abuse by silence is bullshit.

I've presented evidence in many forms including a ******* Cardinal apologizing for his role in covering up sexual abuse and having victims sign vows of silence. Does that sound vaguely familiar? Doesn't that sound a lot like what the order states as well as the 2001 letter from the Vatican that was sent to Bishops on a global scale.

**** your bullshit snobbery about "hoping" you won't need to explain "proof." I've been softer on you than others because I though you were a bit mentally challenged and rather congenial. **** that.

Proof is nothing more than sufficient evidence fuckwad. I've provided evidence by factual evidence the orders exist, that the 1962 order was in effect until it was updated by the Vatican in 2001, a Cardinal apologizing for doing what the order stated, bishops affirming they understood violating the order meant excommunication, actual convictions and confessions, and the damn Pope himself admitting the policy. But in your fucked up world that is somehow insufficient evidence. You then ***** about an english translation. Why? If I post it the next thing you'll do is demand several international courts certifying the translation is accurate and even if I could do that you'd then claim I need to produce a critically acclaimed rap album by Kevin "Lovin' Mah Trailurr Park" Federline. Why? Because with people like you there is always a delusional justification available to keep your eyes closed.

You have presented one sided "evidence" from the media and seem to refuse to give the church the right of rebuttal.

I did not say you made that argument about promoting abuse by silence. I said the report is making that argument and there is no proof that is the case. That is what I am reading from the article and I don't believe that the media as being completely truthful. They are presenting only one side of the issue without giving the church a fair shake.

I have admitted several times that the order exists. I never once claimed they did not. That was not the argument. The argument was what they actually say. Give me one good reason that I should accept the word of the attorney or The Guardian over the word of the church. Just one reason.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand you have been trying to argue is that this order states that it is Vatican Policy that any clergy who goes to the authorities regarding any case of sexual abuse on a child does so under the threat of excommunication. Is that not what you have been arguing? I don't see that the evidence you have provided proves your case. I see that there is an order that may say that or may have been interpreted as to having said that. No where am I saying you are wrong, I'm just not seeing the evidence that you claim proves your case. The burden of proof lies on you.

As for the apology from the Cardinal, it says to me that they Cardinal covered up a crime and that the Cardinal screwed up. It does not tell me what Vatican Policy is.

Plain and simple, you have not proven the issue and the fact that you have now resorted to whining and name calling says to me that you can't do so. You may have convinced yourself that Vatican Policy is for clergy to remain silent, but like I said, I find that hard to believe.

Immie