Not all gay sex is abusive

[Soutane]

NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

Friday April 23, 2010
NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

April 23, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times about a case of alleged sexual abuse committed by a Chilean priest:

If a 17-year old guy has sex with an older guy for twenty years, and continues to have sex with him at the age of 38—while he is married with children—is there anyone who would believe his claim that he was sexually abused? The answer is yes: the New York Times would. That’s exactly what happened in the case described in today’s newspaper involving a homosexual affair between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.

Why would the New York Times try to sell this so-called abuse story with a straight face? For two reasons: it wallows in stories designed to weaken the moral authority of the Catholic Church, and it is so gay-friendly as to be gay-crazy.

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

Contact executive editor Bill Keller: executive-editor@nytimes.com

Share this Article

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1839

 

[unafraid]

NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

Friday April 23, 2010
NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

April 23, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times about a case of alleged sexual abuse committed by a Chilean priest:

If a 17-year old guy has sex with an older guy for twenty years, and continues to have sex with him at the age of 38—while he is married with children—is there anyone who would believe his claim that he was sexually abused? The answer is yes: the New York Times would. That’s exactly what happened in the case described in today’s newspaper involving a homosexual affair between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.

Why would the New York Times try to sell this so-called abuse story with a straight face? For two reasons: it wallows in stories designed to weaken the moral authority of the Catholic Church, and it is so gay-friendly as to be gay-crazy.

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

Contact executive editor Bill Keller: executive-editor@nytimes.com

Share this Article

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1839

I am curious. Who owns the New York Times? I have never seen it listed here. All media derive their slant and bias from the central controlling authority, that is, the ones holding the company purse. Since there has been exposed media antipathy, coordinated, strategic assaults and blatant anti-Catholicism during this unprecedented period of openly hostile propaganda against the Church, to properly combat this attack we must trace it back to its source. Find the source, identify the root of this bias, check for links with other outlets engaged in similar behavior, and mount a counter-offensive.

This kind of hateful campaign is too serious to ignore. Ranting against hack columnists just doesn’t cut it anymore. Identify the powers behind the garish headlines, see if they intersect in any way with one another, and then demand they speak to their own motives, dark designs and methodology. Find out why they hate the Church, and why they are using their power to wound Her. This outrageous, slanderous, over-the-top feeding frenzy has gone too far. Who owns the New York Times? Does anyone out there know the answer? Please let us know so that we might write to them directly. It is time to turn the spotlight on them for awhile. Let’s take away the shadows and shed some light on the truth behind these smears, and more importantly on just who the true perpetrators are, and why they are doing this. They might not be so bold if they are forced into the open, where scoundrels cannot hide.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Now we know why so many in the church tried to get people to accept terms other than pedophilia for the abuse. To pave the way for this disgusting attempt to whitewash over abuse.

Donohue tries to use natural dislike for homosexual acts to take people’s attention away from the facts of the story.

1. Hamilton was a minor (17) and was a 52-year old priest in a position of trust when this began. It was the sexual abuse of a minor, plain and simple. Just as it is abuse in the case of this thread where the clinic was told a 14 year old was having consensual sex with a 31 year old, likewise it is a crime when the 52 year old molests the 17 year old because the 17 year old cannot consent.
2. The fact that homosexual activity continued after Hamilton reached the age of majority doesn’t negate the abuse that occurred. It may be an indication of psychological trauma on the part of Hamilton or it may be that he simply had same sex attraction. The fact that I and others find these actions distasteful doesn’t negate the abuse that occurred.
3. Whatever Donohue would have done as a 17 year old is moot regarding the question of abuse. Even if Hamilton had wanted the activities to happen, he still wasn’t legally able to give consent. So it’s still abuse.

Donohue is using the same technique as was used with rape victims years ago “they wanted it, can’t you tell by their actions?”

Donohue continues to disgust me for his callousness and disregard for the suffering that occurred. That is most evident in the following recordings:

youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

Donohue is a disgrace to Catholicism for his attempts to deny or minimize abuse-he is a Catholic Truther, spining the same sorts of ridiculous conspiracies and smears to try and hide the truth.

I would hope in future that Catholics choose not to quote him and his vile apologias

 

[Religion_Ninja]

What is the age of consent in chile?

Wikipedia currently lists it as 14.

Oh age of consent differs for homosexuals. Then its 18.

 

[Non_Serviam]

What is the age of consent in chile?

Wikipedia currently lists it as 14.

Oh age of consent differs for homosexuals. Then its 18.

Yes, that’s the case.

I’m posting the link to the story here and in its own thread so that people can see for themselves how Donohue slanted the facts and lwft out any mention of the other 3 victims.

nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/americas/23chile.html

 

[unafraid]

Now we know why so many in the church tried to get people to accept terms other than pedophilia for the abuse. To pave the way for this disgusting attempt to whitewash over abuse.

Donohue tries to use natural dislike for homosexual acts to take people’s attention away from the facts of the story.

1. Hamilton was a minor (17) and was a 52-year old priest in a position of trust when this began. It was the sexual abuse of a minor, plain and simple. Just as it is abuse in the case of this thread where the clinic was told a 14 year old was having consensual sex with a 31 year old, likewise it is a crime when the 52 year old molests the 17 year old because the 17 year old cannot consent.
2. The fact that homosexual activity continued after Hamilton reached the age of majority doesn’t negate the abuse that occurred. It may be an indication of psychological trauma on the part of Hamilton or it may be that he simply had same sex attraction. The fact that I and others find these actions distasteful doesn’t negate the abuse that occurred.
3. Whatever Donohue would have done as a 17 year old is moot regarding the question of abuse. Even if Hamilton had wanted the activities to happen, he still wasn’t legally able to give consent. So it’s still abuse.

Donohue is using the same technique as was used with rape victims years ago “they wanted it, can’t you tell by their actions?”

Donohue continues to disgust me for his callousness and disregard for the suffering that occurred. That is most evident in the following recordings:

youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

Donohue is a disgrace to Catholicism for his attempts to deny or minimize abuse-he is a Catholic Truther, spining the same sorts of ridiculous conspiracies and smears to try and hide the truth.

I would hope in future that Catholics choose not to quote him and his vile apologias

So what was the date of the 52 year old priests conviction? I seem to have missed that bit. If he is guilty, as you so vehemently assert, what were the specifics of the trial? What proscribed means of punishment was ordered, and by whom? Afterall, all accusations of abuse must be valid; any dispute on a case by case basis is simply…“ridiculous”. Isn’t that how it goes? What about objective truth? Where does that fit?

Donohue may be a quiotic figure to some, but to many people he is a sincere, though flawed, defender of the faith who refuses to turn a “blind eye” even when it leads him to become caracatured and mocked. I’ll take him over all of the surreptitious promulgators of deception any day. And if the term, “Catholic Truther”, is not deemed a slur, then please inform me as to the exact date whereupon Websters redefined the term.

 

[Non_Serviam]

So what was the date of the 52 year old priests conviction? I seem to have missed that bit. If he is guilty, as you so vehemently assert, what were the specifics of the trial? What proscribed means of punishment was ordered, and by whom? Afterall, all accusations of abuse must be valid; any dispute on a case by case basis is simply…“ridiculous”. Isn’t that how it goes? What about objective truth? Where does that fit?

Donohue may be a quiotic figure to some, but to many people he is a sincere, though flawed, defender of the faith who refuses to turn a “blind eye” even when it leads him to become caracatured and mocked. I’ll take him over all of the surreptitious promulgators of deception any day. And if the term, “Catholic Truther”, is not deemed a slur, then please inform me as to the exact date whereupon Websters redefined the term.

Ok, I’ve taken a deep breath and I’m going to make the effort to respond to this in a calm fashion.

Yes, I accepted the story as written-so did the Catholic League. In addition the hierarchy in Chile admitted they were investigating the priest on suspicion of abuse. If you look at what that has tended to mean around the world the last few weeks, it has meant “the priest is guilty, we just didn’t want to appear as if we were doing nothing about it.” Followed by quick actio and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

It’s been obvious that mant “defenders” of the church have been attempting to spin the abuse, referring to “homosexual acts with postpubescent boys” and older and younger men engaged in homosexual acts". They’ve been attempting to take the dislike for homosexuality and homosexual acts and use that to distract people from the actual facts of abuse and cover-up.

So, yes, I’m going discuss the actions using the same terms as the press release I’m critiquing. It spoke dismissively of abuse because it predated homosexual contacts, so I spoke of it the same way, rather than further abet this amoral attempt to shift blame.

As for the terms I used to desribe him, believe me when I say they were far more charitable than those I rejected. I chose the term “truther” as a number of Catholics have bandied it about here on CAF (see here) and it was a simple and compact way of expressing the thought “a person who promotes farfetched conspiracy theories and distorts facts and quotes in order to support such theories”

To clarify that I was referring to Donohue’s actions relative to the Catholic church and the abuse scandal and not 9/11 I described him as a Catholic truther. That doesn’t mean I believe most Catholics deserve that term-they don’t. Many on CAF have responded honourably in relation to the scandal, pointing out inaccuracies in the media where they occur, accepting facts when exposed by the media as well, and above all wanting those who abuse and those who enable them removed from positions of trust.

If this term shouldn’t be used here by anyone, I’m more than willing to agree never to use it again, I don’t find it a particularly pleasant term and the behaviour it describes deeply disturbs me. But then so does Bill Donohue and any attempt to paint these awful “commentaries” of his in a positive light. Please listen to the links I posted above and then please let me know how you can find them to be anything but hateful. That is all I can draw from them.

 

[Diogenes1]

It is my understanding that, with the exception of the Pharisees and the money exchangers
in the Temple, Jesus taught and practiced NON-judgement of others.
However, what I constantly see and read and hear from so called “Christians” - is judging of others.

Christians, for example, constantly condemn anyone with different sexual preferences
as though their beliefs were the only ones acceptable…without ever having studied history,
anthropology, sociology or ethnology…or traveled to other countries with different customs.
The amount of ignorance often expressed in forums, blogs and other sources is freightening.
What is even worse, is that people in elected office often pass legislation that can really
injure people without doing any more investigation than the ignorant ones bloviating on
forums and blogs, etc.

 

[Religion_Ninja]

It is my understanding that, with the exception of the Pharisees and the money exchangers
in the Temple, Jesus taught and practiced NON-judgement of others.
However, what I constantly see and read and hear from so called “Christians” - is judging of others.

Christians, for example, constantly condemn anyone with different sexual preferences
as though their beliefs were the only ones acceptable…without ever having studied history,
anthropology, sociology or ethnology…or traveled to other countries with different customs.
The amount of ignorance often expressed in forums, blogs and other sources is freightening.
What is even worse, is that people in elected office often pass legislation that can really
injure people without doing any more investigation than the ignorant ones bloviating on
forums and blogs, etc.

So Jesus was acting judgmental when he criticized the pharisees and money changers? He was angry sure, but there is a difference.

Most Christians that I know don’t condemn anyone. Most of the time they say “this or that is a sin. You shouldn’t do it; its bad for you and others and it harms your relationship with God. But we are all sinners. God will forgive you.” Thats what I hear.

I have seen those guys with wearing signs with a list of everyone that is going to hell but those kind of people are rare, at least in my experience.

I don’t think its fair to assume that Christians are just a bunch of uncultured, uneducated people.

You talk about ignorance and passing judgment on people. I think your comments are pretty unfair and judgmental.

 

[unafraid]

Ok, I’ve taken a deep breath and I’m going to make the effort to respond to this in a calm fashion.

Yes, I accepted the story as written-so did the Catholic League. In addition the hierarchy in Chile admitted they were investigating the priest on suspicion of abuse. If you look at what that has tended to mean around the world the last few weeks, it has meant “the priest is guilty, we just didn’t want to appear as if we were doing nothing about it.” Followed by quick actio and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

It’s been obvious that mant “defenders” of the church have been attempting to spin the abuse, referring to “homosexual acts with postpubescent boys” and older and younger men engaged in homosexual acts". They’ve been attempting to take the dislike for homosexuality and homosexual acts and use that to distract people from the actual facts of abuse and cover-up.

So, yes, I’m going discuss the actions using the same terms as the press release I’m critiquing. It spoke dismissively of abuse because it predated homosexual contacts, so I spoke of it the same way, rather than further abet this amoral attempt to shift blame.

As for the terms I used to desribe him, believe me when I say they were far more charitable than those I rejected. I chose the term “truther” as a number of Catholics have bandied it about here on CAF (see here) and it was a simple and compact way of expressing the thought “a person who promotes farfetched conspiracy theories and distorts facts and quotes in order to support such theories”

To clarify that I was referring to Donohue’s actions relative to the Catholic church and the abuse scandal and not 9/11 I described him as a Catholic truther. That doesn’t mean I believe most Catholics deserve that term-they don’t. Many on CAF have responded honourably in relation to the scandal, pointing out inaccuracies in the media where they occur, accepting facts when exposed by the media as well, and above all wanting those who abuse and those who enable them removed from positions of trust.

If this term shouldn’t be used here by anyone, I’m more than willing to agree never to use it again, I don’t find it a particularly pleasant term and the behaviour it describes deeply disturbs me. But then so does Bill Donohue and any attempt to paint these awful “commentaries” of his in a positive light. Please listen to the links I posted above and then please let me know how you can find them to be anything but hateful. That is all I can draw from them.

I respect your point of view, but I contend that this situation has mutated into a phenomenon with a clearly dual dynamic. Firstly, we have the clerical abuse and the mishandling of it by the Church’s hierarchy, which all people of true and honorable spirit oppose, condemn and lament. Secondly, there exists the exploitive and malicious use of these misfortunes for the sole purpose of striking a lethal blow into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church.

For me, there is no longer a blending of these two elements into one story, but rather I see the two as having split into two wholly separate entities. I loathe the darker elements of each dynamic, equally. But, and this is the complexity of this issue, defending my faith from slander, perfidy, and outright malevolent assault, does not imply that I somehow view the de facto clerical abuse with less repugnance. I do not.

As the father of two daughters, three and five…as a man who looks into their angelic faces each and every night as they recite their bedtime prayers, my heart bleeds for all innocence defiled. However, the Roman Catholic Church is also integral to the life of my family (it is alive within us), and I am wounded by this unprecedented media barrage. Am I to be silent when those who wish to destroy the foundations of my Church declare open war in an era which supposedly has abolished bigotry, and its appendages? Never. This hypocrisy must be exposed and defeated.

Donohue is not the ideal defender of the faith, that is a certainty, but he is on our side, my side, the Catholic side. On the front lines comrades in arms do not have to be simpatico.They just need to shoot in the direction of a common foe.

 

[Brendan]

It is my understanding that, with the exception of the Pharisees and the money exchangers
in the Temple, Jesus taught and practiced NON-judgement of others.
However, what I constantly see and read and hear from so called “Christians” - is judging of others…

Christ did teach that we should not judge others. But we CAN judge actions. No logical person, Christian or not, would say that there are no differences between the actions of Adolf Hitler and the actions of Mother Theresea

Actions are not people, and therefore, they can be judged. Even in the Temple, Christ was enacting judgement on the particular ACTIONS of people. Likewise with the Pharisees, (and all sinners), Christ cast judgement on what they were doing and called them to do better.

Do you see the difference?

And that is what Christians are also called to do.

 

[mark_a]

NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

Friday April 23, 2010
NOT ALL GAY SEX IS ABUSIVE

April 23, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times about a case of alleged sexual abuse committed by a Chilean priest:

If a 17-year old guy has sex with an older guy for twenty years, and continues to have sex with him at the age of 38—while he is married with children—is there anyone who would believe his claim that he was sexually abused? The answer is yes: the New York Times would. That’s exactly what happened in the case described in today’s newspaper involving a homosexual affair between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.

Why would the New York Times try to sell this so-called abuse story with a straight face? For two reasons: it wallows in stories designed to weaken the moral authority of the Catholic Church, and it is so gay-friendly as to be gay-crazy.

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it’s the political motivation of the New York Times.

Contact executive editor Bill Keller: executive-editor@nytimes.com

Share this Article

catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1839

God bless Bill Donahue!!

 

[csuliman]

As the father of two daughters, three and five…as a man who looks into their angelic faces each and every night as they recite their bedtime prayers, my heart bleeds for all innocence defiled. However, the Roman Catholic Church is also integral to the life of my family (it is alive within us), and I am wounded by this unprecedented media barrage.** Am I to be silent when those who wish to destroy the foundations of my Church declare open war in an era which supposedly has abolished bigotry, and its appendages?** Never. This hypocrisy must be exposed and defeated.
.

When your enemy tells you your house is on fire, and you see smoke in the distance, maybe you should at the very least check on it.

The media is not our enemy. In fact, they are on the moral high ground here because they have provided the victims of rape,molestation and psychological abuse with a voice. The church, on the other hand, has behaved despicably over the last few weeks and over the years where victim were told to remain quit and rapists were allowed to continue freely.

I am a Chaldean Catholic and I love my Chaldean priests and bishops who risk their live every day in Iraq. However, I have lost a lot of respect for the authority of the administration in Rome. I use the word “administration” because they have behaved more like a political leadership trying to cover their behind rather than as the Holy See.

 

[Darryl1958]

The more that the left shows its face, the more that it is apparent that the left is no friend of the Catholic Church.

the more that the left shows its face, the more apparent it becomes that they will do everything in their power to de-legitimitize the teaching authority of the Church.
they have their own set of values, and Catholic teaching and leftist values can never cooperate, but only collide.

The left is no respecter of Catholicism. Their passion is not for Catholic values, but for leftist ones only. That is their campaign. They wear their Catholicism like a wolf wears wool.
Once the moral authority of the Catholic Church has been fully discredited rest assured that ephebophelia, like virtually all sexual encounters now, will become fully accepted in our society.

In truth, it already is. The leftist campaign against the Catholic Church is not concerned about the teenage boys involved in sexual encounters with homosexual men, but only in exploiting the sins of these priests in order ot marginalize Christianity completely in Western society.

 

[unafraid]

When your enemy tells you your house is on fire, and you see smoke in the distance, maybe you should at the very least check on it.

The media is not our enemy. In fact, they are on the moral high ground here because they have provided the victims of rape,molestation and psychological abuse with a voice. The church, on the other hand, has behaved despicably over the last few weeks and over the years where victim were told to remain quit and rapists were allowed to continue freely.

I am a Chaldean Catholic and I love my Chaldean priests and bishops who risk their live every day in Iraq. However, I have lost a lot of respect for the authority of the administration in Rome. I use the word “administration” because they have behaved more like a political leadership trying to cover their behind rather than as the Holy See.

I note your opinion, and reject it outright. Nothing personal. We simply have perspectives which are diametrically opposed.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I respect your point of view, but I contend that this situation has mutated into a phenomenon with a clearly dual dynamic. Firstly, we have the clerical abuse and the mishandling of it by the Church’s hierarchy, which all people of true and honorable spirit oppose, condemn and lament. Secondly, there exists the exploitive and malicious use of these misfortunes for the sole purpose of striking a lethal blow into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church.

For me, there is no longer a blending of these two elements into one story, but rather I see the two as having split into two wholly separate entities. I loathe the darker elements of each dynamic, equally. But, and this is the complexity of this issue, defending my faith from slander, perfidy, and outright malevolent assault, does not imply that I somehow view the de facto clerical abuse with less repugnance. I do not.

As the father of two daughters, three and five…as a man who looks into their angelic faces each and every night as they recite their bedtime prayers, my heart bleeds for all innocence defiled. However, the Roman Catholic Church is also integral to the life of my family (it is alive within us), and I am wounded by this unprecedented media barrage. Am I to be silent when those who wish to destroy the foundations of my Church declare open war in an era which supposedly has abolished bigotry, and its appendages? Never. This hypocrisy must be exposed and defeated.

Donohue is not the ideal defender of the faith, that is a certainty, but he is on our side, my side, the Catholic side. On the front lines comrades in arms do not have to be simpatico.They just need to shoot in the direction of a common foe.

Thanks for the detailed post, it gives me a better idea of your context in all this. We do share some thoughts in common on this and on some points we differ. I agree there has been some good reporting as well as some people trying to be opportunisic (Mssrs. Hitchens and Dawkins come quickly to mind) but public response to the latter has been overwhelmingly negative.

I also believe that there is a 3rd group-journalists trying to cover this story to meet the demand of the public with little help from the church. I don’t believe that most of the public is seeking the downfall of the church, but I do believe their confidence has been shaken and their goodwill expended and they are now looking for more information to make decisions about how they will think about the church in the future.

Thusfar the church hasn’t been very helpful or forthcoming with information and the journalists have often published with only partial information in the hopes of bringing other witnesses out of the woodwork or pressuring the church to provide more information. Please remember that in the US Scandals prior to 2002, it was the concerted pressure from the media and the public (especially the Catholic public) that finally broke the silence, and began cleaning up some of the mess.

I’ve also noted that the recent pressure has led to a cleanup of abusive priests around the world (something that should have happened as a result of the cleanup in America but didn’t) as well as the resignations of Bishops who were complicit with the abusers.

I see that sort of cleansing as a good thing-something that will restore confidence in the long run. Circling the wagons and throwing stones sends the message that there is still wickedness that is being covered up.

I have extended family members who have experienced a great deal of grief as a result of this issue, the most recent being a couple who are being crucified by “faithful Catholics” because they refuse to permit their children to attend church activities with a clergy member present whom they consider questionable.

This group of “faithful” are old enough that their children are adults and there is no personal cost for them to hold this opinion, but they ask my family members to gamble with their kids to “present a strong front for the church”. This from reading the half-truths and distortions of people like Donohue.

If you want to count him in your corner, feel free, but please don’t expect a free ride for him from the rest of us. His shenanigans get in the way of the cleanup. I respect that you are trying to do the best for your kids and your church, please understand that the view isn’t the same for everyone.

 

[PaulinVA]

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn’t resist going back for more.

So, women who are caught up in abusive relationships for years actually like it?

Some people should not be allowed to speak in public.

 

[onmyknees]

The more that the left shows its face, the more that it is apparent that the left is no friend of the Catholic Church.

the more that the left shows its face, the more apparent it becomes that they will do everything in their power to de-legitimitize the teaching authority of the Church.
they have their own set of values, and Catholic teaching and leftist values can never cooperate, but only collide.

The left is no respecter of Catholicism. Their passion is not for Catholic values, but for leftist ones only. That is their campaign. They wear their Catholicism like a wolf wears wool.
Once the moral authority of the Catholic Church has been fully discredited rest assured that ephebophelia, like virtually all sexual encounters now, will become fully accepted in our society.

In truth, it already is. The leftist campaign against the Catholic Church is not concerned about the teenage boys involved in sexual encounters with homosexual men, but only in exploiting the sins of these priests in order ot marginalize Christianity completely in Western society.

I have to agree with this. The media is singling out the Catholic Church sexual abuses. They don’t go after all the other organizations (with the same percentages of sexual abuse cases and coverups) in the this way.

Just another example, my husband and I go to the movies almost once a week. Last year more than half of the movies had a scene depicting a Catholic priest or nun in an extremely negative and offensive way.

I also know many ex-Catholics including my own family members who are extremely left wing and absolutely hate the authority of the Church.

It IS their agenda to bring down the Catholic Church but the powers of death will not prevail against it!

 

[Diogenes1]

So Jesus was acting judgmental when he criticized the pharisees and money changers? He was angry sure, but there is a difference.

Most Christians that I know don’t condemn anyone. Most of the time they say “this or that is a sin. You shouldn’t do it; its bad for you and others and it harms your relationship with God. But we are all sinners. God will forgive you.” Thats what I hear.

I have seen those guys with wearing signs with a list of everyone that is going to hell but those kind of people are rare, at least in my experience.

I don’t think its fair to assume that Christians are just a bunch of uncultured, uneducated people.

You talk about ignorance and passing judgment on people. I think your comments are pretty unfair and judgmental.

 

[Diogenes1]

Go back and read your second paragraph.
If that is not judging people, I don’t know what is.