Kamala Harris can't be too anti-Catholic if she would not Prosecute accused Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
By Catholics or Attorneys representing Catholic entities.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think refusing to prosecute criminals means anything regarding her attitude towards the religion to which the criminals belong.

If she refused to prosecute, I hope it was because there was insufficient evidence on which to convict.
 
Annie said:
I don’t think refusing to prosecute criminals means anything regarding her attitude towards the religion to which the criminals belong.

If she refused to prosecute, I hope it was because there was insufficient evidence on which to convict.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
However, during that same time period, there were at least 50 major cities bringing charges against priests for sexual abuse. At the same time Harris failed to pursue prosecution of cases of priest sexual abuse, her office “would strangely hide vital records on abuses that had occurred,” Schweizer revealed.
Click to expand...
50 cities means at least 50 charges. She did not attempt to prosecute a single one.

The 2 Attorneys that contributed to her campaign also represented the USCCB and Catholic Charites.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

If she was truly anti-catholic as trump supporter claim, IMHO, she would have prosecuted these accused Priests to the fullest of the law. Yet she did not even attempt to prosecute a single one.
 
Governor Whitmer of Michigan has been accused of being anti Catholic and she brought charges against priests here. They raided the dioceses all over the state. I didn’t see any complaints from Catholics about that action.
 
RidgeSprinter said:
If she was truly anti-catholic as trump supporter claim, IMHO, she would have prosecuted these accused Priests to the fullest of the law. Yet she did not even attempt to prosecute a single one
Click to expand...
Correlation does not equal causation. I have seen no evidence that she is pro-Catholic, and I am sure plenty of Catholic prosecutors prosecuted priests because…
StudentMI said:
I didn’t see any complaints from Catholics about that action.
Click to expand...
…maybe Catholics want abusers prosecuted even if they are Catholic.

Personally, I am totally against sexual predators, and I want them prosecuted, even if they are Catholic, and even if they are Catholic priests. Predators commit very evil crimes and refusing to prosecute them because they are Catholic or even Catholic priests is not doing anyone any favors.
 
I for one was happy she did what she did. We’ve had one conviction so far and hopefully more to come.
 
And at the same it weakens USCCB complaints against her being anti-catholic. And makes the USCCB look corrupt in their attempt to protect their brotherhood.
 
Annie said:
I have seen no evidence that she is pro-Catholic
Click to expand...
Neither do I, nor do I see staunch evidence that she is anti-Catholic in it’s true form.

Real anti-Catholicism comes in the form of people like James White and other debaters against Catholic Apologists.
 
Last edited:
It’s all a matter of research, California of course, is our most populated state by far. This case has much research and documentation.
 
Agreed and unfortunately at the expense of “Hush Money” donated by those those that represented the USCCB and Catholic Charities.

At the time Kamala Harris acted corruptly after the fact once the campaign was over.
At the time USCCB acted corruptly via their attorney.
At the time Catholic Charities acted corruptly via their attorney.

It takes two to tango. Always.

BUT, we could discount the whole account because it is claimed by a Senior BRIETBART writer? After all, they do pander in conspiracy theories most of the time and pander to creating division.
 
Of course. Define anti-Catholicism narrowly, and then there will be fewer anti-Catholics!

I do not know what her view is about Catholicism; afaict, this has been expressed only in her questioning of Brian Buescher.

I really think a lot of politicians’ views are purely pragmatic and have nothing to do with anything other than will it help me get elected?
 
Last edited:
I have to wonder what the reaction would have been if a senator had asked a gay man in the 1990s similar questions regarding gay marriage, etc.

:roll_eyes:
 
Annie said:
Of course. Define anti-Catholicism narrowly, and then there will be fewer anti-Catholics!
Click to expand...
Having spent the better part of the 2000s as a Catholic Apologist in the Southeastern States debating specific Protestants in person with real anti-Catholics, I find accusing politicians of being anti-Catholic because of their line of questioning to a nominee quite insulting to us whom have actually battled real ones.

I actually asked Patrick Madrid if he thought it was insulting to him as well. He said yes.

The 2 toughest topics to debate a Protestant on are Marian Doctrines and Petrine Doctrines. The apologists here online do a poor job of it. They are always trying to quote the "Church Fathers’. That just will not cut it, because those are extra-biblical sources. One has to use the Bible and usually the KJV to debate the “Bible Alone” types.
 
Your definition excludes all those anti-Catholics who are not Protestant. What are we supposed to call them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top