I did not say that the Pope should not be believed. Seems you have reading comprehension problems.
Is this the quote to which you refer?
I didn't say he should not be believed. I said I don't pay a whole hell of a lot of attention to him. I sure as hell did not say he was a liar.
Maybe you just don't understand the allusion to Martin Luther? Luther claimed the office of the Pope was anti-Christ. Not that the Pope was, but the office of the Pope.
I have to assume that you have gone strictly by the media as you have presented only one side of the issue and you seem to accept everything they say.
Immie
Y
ou said not much attention should be paid to what the Pope says then you cite the Pope to defend your argument. Got hypocrisy? If you "shouldn't pay much attention" to what someone says then that means that person is not credible. Not believeable.
Then you repeat the lie I've only presented one sided media evidence.....after you just got done admitting a Cardinal confessed. That is why I'm calling you a ******* dishonest *****. I'm not insulting you out of a lack of evidence I've presented. It's from the lack of integrity and intellectual honesty on your part.
Oh my Lord, talk about being dishonest as the day is long. You are a damned liar. Look at the shit you post. I never said anyone should not pay attention to the Pope. Can't you read? Have you lost it so badly that you have to resort to changing my words, repeatedly? I said
I don't pay any attention to him. Are you that naive to believe that simply because I do not pay attention to the Pope that you should not either? I'm not Catholic. I have major problems with the Catholic Church. That is why I don't pay any attention to the Pope. Where in the world did I say that you should do as I do and not pay any attention to the Pope?
What is your problem? Why can't you hold a discussion with anyone that disagrees with you without almost immediately lapsing into a name calling cry baby?
As for the Cardinal's confession all I see in that confession is an admittance that he made a mistake. That he, not the church, was wrong. There is a difference between him being wrong and the church being wrong. As far as I can tell, he apologized for his part in the events not for what the church did. I don't see where the Cardinal came out and said that the church was in error in regards to these events. I see that the Cardinal came out and said that he was sorry for his part in the events. Whether he thought he was doing what the church wanted him to do at the time, or that he is protecting the church, or that he is playing the fall guy for the church, I don't know and quite frankly I don't care, because I don't look at his "confession" as being the church's stance on the issue.
What part of that don't you understand? Can it be any more clear? I don't speak for the Lutheran Church. Rush Limbaugh (who I don't even listen to) doesn't speak for me as a conservative. In this case, The Cardinal is not speaking for the Catholic Church either. He may at times speak the official position of the church, but in this case he was not.
As for the so called lie, you claim I have been espousing, I simply gave you my opinion which you have not been able to change. I have only seen a one sided presentation from you. That is my opinion. If you were mature, you would understand that and attempt to persuade me as to why you feel I am wrong, (which I may be) rather than flying off the handle beginning to name call simply because I don't agree with you. My opinion is that a) By presenting the media's side of the story, you have only presented a one sided argument against the church, b) you have offered no defense of the church... by the way, the Cardinal's "confession" is in no way a "defense of the church". Your presentation is therefore still one sided.
What part of that don't you understand? You provided a Cardinal's "confession" and then make some wild-assed claim that this suffices as the church's position of the issue. Do you really believe that is the Roman Catholic Church's official position on the issue? If you are going to present the other side of the story, you have to actually present the other side of the story, not two identical sides of the same story. What is the church's stance on the order from 1962 and Cardinal Ratzinger's letter from 2001? What does the church have to say in defense of itself? That was what I said I would need to believe you.
The church has stated that the order does not mean that clergy cannot go to the police. Without any evidence contradicting that point, I have to take their word for that right now. As far as I can tell, the order does not prevent clergy from informing the authorities in cases of child molestation.
Personally, I would like to know how they reconcile that with the confidentiality of the confessional.
Immie
