Ted Haggard scandal

[Island_Oak]

steadfast, so you could not find an example of me gloating. However, you are delighted when a priest falls into scandal and you use it against us. Yet you shy away from confronting your own scandals. If you really want to see some issues on your side of the fence I suggest a visit to www.stopbaptistpredators.org. You will discover that cover ups are not exclusive to Catholicism.

I think steadfast is an example of the type of fundamentalist I encounter who rejoice in our problems. Par for the course. Nice to see him “take the high moral ground.”

Your posts contain little evidence of priest-like restraint, charity or balance . Pray share with us how old you are and how long you have been wearing the collar.

 

[cestusdei]

Cestus,

Your whole tone throughout this thread from your opening salvo “it should be interesting” to your charge that he was only accountable because he was caught to your hystrionic charge that people are “screaming pedophile when they see a collar” speak volumes about your heart and how you feel about the whole issue.

You’re clearly glad to see a high profile case where a Protestant leader is caught in the same kind of thing your church’s priests were caught in.

The irony is that if ever there was a case where accountability only came after being caught, nay, after public outcry, it is in your church’s recent crisis.

As for the word “gloating” I wasn’t the first to use it, the poster nicked “Saint_Michael” used it first. I borrowed it because I think it fits.

You’re bitter and you’re pleased as can be that Ted Haggard and that church are caught up in this mess.

I call that gloating.

I find it disgusting that the best most Catholics can do when the issue of priestly sexual abuse is raised is counter with “Well, Protestants do it too” and now, to paraphrase your remarks in this thread, “See, I told you so, hee hee!”.

I think this bitter diatribe on your part illustrates my problem with you. I did call you a Protestant, if you are Eastern Orthodox you have my apologies. I am assuming you are not Roman Catholic. Your reaction to the thread indicates an implicit assumption that any mention of the Haggard scandal is taboo.

You state I am pleased and gloating, yet you have not been able to show an instance of that on my part. After checking I don’t find the phrase, “see I told you so hee hee.” Maybe you could point out where I did.

I have read some of your other posts and you don’t see to like Catholicism much. You have succeeded in changing the topic of the thread. I suppose I could have complained about you, but I have never complained about any other poster on the board. If you have a personal problem with me then email me. Or you can continue to misrepresent me on the thread. It won’t get you anywhere.

 

[Steadfast]

Okay, so this means you’re not going to tell me how I came to be a fundamentalist, where I said only cases of Catholic sexual abuse were newsworthy and where I’ve shown myself “delighted” when priests falter?

Then I can just disregard anything else you’re going to say because you’ve demonstrated that you’re dishonest, triangulative and unworthy of any further interaction.

Good day.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by** cestusdei**
Fine by me. If my point hasn’t been made by now it won’t get made.

For what it’s worth Father, I understood the point you were making.
I also find it revolting that our good, faithful Priests are verbally attacked on the streets!

 

[bella5110]

No, it’s not about anti-catholicism, it’s about sin, whatever the uniform worn by the sinner, and maybe this is the crux of your error.

In your haste to make polemical points with this you have stooped to exactly the kind of behavior you accuse “fundamentalists” of.

I’m still waiting for you to:

1. show me what I have said that would lead you to conclude that I am a fundamentalist,
2. how I’ve taken delight in the Catholic sex abuse scandal and
3. where I’ve said that only cases of Catholic priests committing such sins should be considered newsworthy.

You’ve made all three of these charges against me personally.

For my part, all I’ve said is that you were gloating; your attempt to retreat behind a justification that maybe now “Fundamentalists” will be nicer to you is as telling as it is shameful.

Cestudei
When non-Catholics start to take things personal, it is out of losing the battle, and not even worthy to pursue. They do not understand how we as Catholics have suffered for centuries over persecution in the name of Jesus and the one true religion. I thought your comments were very to the point and that’s what people do not like. These sites can tend to make Catholics aggravated because of the topic involved. It isn’t worth it. I will too defend my faith to the end, and that is just what you were doing.

 

[cestusdei]

steadfast, I guess quoting you won’t work. You failed to show where I gloated. So in response to your dishonesty I will disregard what you say. Good night.

Island, go back to the very first post. Notice how quickly I was jumped on for simply posting the story. I would have been treated with more charity if I had been the one who did what Haggard did. I asked repeatedly for someone to point out where I was gloating over Haggard and no one, including you, has done so.

Bella, after the events of recent years most priests are defensive and more then a little fed up. The number of priests on leaves of absence is the highest it has ever been. I understand Protestants don’t like this scandal. It is giving them a very small taste of what we have endured. I guess I am wrong, but I was hoping that might lead them to treat us with a little more sympathy.

 

[bella5110]

steadfast, I guess quoting you won’t work. You failed to show where I gloated. So in response to your dishonesty I will disregard what you say. Good night.

Island, go back to the very first post. Notice how quickly I was jumped on for simply posting the story. I would have been treated with more charity if I had been the one who did what Haggard did. I asked repeatedly for someone to point out where I was gloating over Haggard and no one, including you, has done so.

Bella, after the events of recent years most priests are defensive and more then a little fed up. The number of priests on leaves of absence is the highest it has ever been. I understand Protestants don’t like this scandal. It is giving them a very small taste of what we have endured. I guess I am wrong, but I was hoping that might lead them to treat us with a little more sympathy.

BECAUSE PROTESTANTS DO NOT KNOW THAT A PRIEST IS THE UMBILICAL CORD TO CHRIST. It doesn’t matter what they say, I will see you on another thread, and I will defend you. You are a good man, and people can only see one word and that’s “scandal”. There were tons of priests accused for nothng. They are loving and abiding men, giving up their lives for God.
Remember, you only have to answer to no one but Our Lord. I understand your frustration. There is no sympathy because it is a reason to hate us. Bless you.

 

[Steadfast]

steadfast, I guess quoting you won’t work. You failed to show where I gloated. So in response to your dishonesty I will disregard what you say. Good night.

Island, go back to the very first post. Notice how quickly I was jumped on for simply posting the story. I would have been treated with more charity if I had been the one who did what Haggard did. I asked repeatedly for someone to point out where I was gloating over Haggard and no one, including you, has done so.

Bella, after the events of recent years most priests are defensive and more then a little fed up. The number of priests on leaves of absence is the highest it has ever been. I understand Protestants don’t like this scandal. It is giving them a very small taste of what we have endured. I guess I am wrong, but I was hoping that might lead them to treat us with a little more sympathy.

Oh, get your own writer.

 

[Eden]

Ted Haggard had an adulterous, homosexual affair for three years which was an enormous betrayal to his church’s members, his family and the millions of Evangelicals he led. That is what the topic of this thread is. And I understand what Cestusdei was trying to say. Members of other Christian faiths have been comfortable with the media portrayal that sex scandals are exclusively a Catholic problem. I think the reason that some posters here have lashed out about perceived “gloating” is that they don’t want to have to face the real issue, that scandals like this can happen anywhere, even in their own church.

 

[Steadfast]

In post #1, you said, “This should prove interesting”. At the time I thought nothing of it, later things you wrote caused me to rethink this and to conclude that your intention here was to denote something more than mere “interest”.

In post #4 Della tells you this is no reason to gloat so, evidently I am not alone.

In post #7 you state your thesis: Amid charges of anti-catholicism you say,

“If he ends up being guilty the evangelicals may find it harder to beat us with this stick.”

In post #24 you actually get down to the business of gloating when you say,

“My point in starting the thread was the next time an evangelical refers to Catholic scandals or is critical of celibacy this is going to come up. I have said all along to them not to crow over our problems, but that it would catch up to them soon enough.”

Now, with Haggard, evidently it has caught up with them and you’re pleased to have this “stick” to beat them with.

In post #30, Island Oak also uses the word “gloat” not in specific reference to you, but you are the prestigious one in this thread thus far and the originator.

In post #32, you reiterate your thesis and make the first reference to your own experiences with regard to the “Maria Monk” style of attacks.

In post #36, aurora77 first articulates my main point which is that it’s really childish as well as counterproductive to employ the “well, they’re doing it too” polemic.

In post #44 Island Oak mitigates his/her original suggestion that you were gloating.

In post #49 you elaborate on your gloating when you say,

“It is only fair if they bring the issue up to put the ball into their court. Keep in mind, THEY are the ones who bring this stuff up, not me. I refuse to “hide” and not wear my collar. I understand that some guys do and I can’t blame them. But I also won’t let a fundamentalist “hide” from his own scandals if he wants to play that game.”

Again that you are at the very least relieved to now have a better weapon in this fight becomes even clearer.

In post #52 you say,

I don’t think it is uncharitable, since they brought the issue up, to challenge them on the same grounds.

underlining the fact that you believe turnabout to be fairplay.

In post #57 you say,

"The key here is for fundamentalists to stick to major issues and not try to make hay out of the scandals.::snip::As for accountablity, Ted was only accountable because he got caught. There is no accountability in most fundamentalist churches.

The irony of your admonition to “fundamentalists” not to make hay out of scandals is rich stuff indeed. In fact, if I weren’t so nearsighted I’d almost mistake it for hypocrisy.

In post #68 you say,

I have said nothing untrue about Haggard. In fact if you look back at all of my posts you will find I have said virtually NOTHING about him at all. Point out to me where I said I was rejoicing at his downfall. You won’t find it. He isn’t the real issue. The issue I was, and am, addressing is fundamentalist anti-Catholicism. This sorry incident will make it more difficult for them to launch such attacks in our direction.

Because you weren’t specific in referring to haggard we are supposed to excuse you? I for one am not an idiot though you may like to think it. I know gloating when I see it and your reduction of this “sorry incident” to a whip for you to take to “fundamentalists” and the pleasure you clearly take in having it to hand should be evidence enough to pin it on you.

In post #86 I make my first charge to you of gloating.

 

[Steadfast]

In post #87 you “challenge” me to show you where you’ve gloated.

In post #88, Saint_Michael, smelling fresh Protestant blood abandons the chiding tone he had taken with you earlier and points his guns on me referring to a discussion in another thread.

In post #89 you accuse me of gloating though you offer no example.

In post #98 I make the first attempt to substantiate the complaint that you were “gloating”, again a charge that I was not the first to make.

In post #99, I answer Saint_Michael.

In post #100 you accuse me of being

delighted when a priest falls into scandal and you use it against us.

and you crow that I am

an example of the type of fundamentalist I encounter who rejoice in our problems.

In post #104 I answer your accusation and ask you for substantiation.

In post #111, Saint_Michael re-hijacks the thread to fight some more with me about a subject in a thread which has been closed by the moderators.

In post #113 you reiterate your counterclaim that it is in fact I who am the gloater citing my saying that “you deserve everything you get”.

In post #115 I tell you that you should not be harrassed in the streets and reiterate my point that your whole tone in this thread is one of gloating. Again I am not the first to characterize it so, others of your own confession did so before me. I point out that the “You’re doing it too” argument is uncharitable and childish.

In post #116, I acknowledge Saint_Michael’s point and publicly apologize for my part in the exchange in that other thread which had been closed and which has nothing to do with this one but which he seemed to think was worth bringing up here.

In post #117 you say to me provocatively,

You Protestants will continue to bash Catholicism over scandals while ignoring your own.

though I have never bashed Catholicism over your scandal and have none of my own.

In post #118 I take you to task for bearing false witness against me and ask you to substantiate your claims against me that I am a fundamentalist, that I have bashed your church over priestly sexual misconduct.

In post #119 you refer me back to a post where you quoted me, evidently referring to my saying you deserved what you got.

In post #123 I repeat the request that you show me where

I’ve expressed delight over the priestly sex abuse scandal.

Show me how I’m a fundamentalist.

Show me where I’ve said or even suggested that the Haggard story shouldn’t be reported in the news.

In post #127 you reiterate your hope that the Haggard incident will be a useful tool in the apologetic wars.

In post#133 I repeat the request that you show me where I’m a “Fundamentalist” where I’ve said that only incidences of Catholic misconduct are newsworthy and where I’ve expressed “delight” in your church’s recent difficulties.

In post #135 I apologize for saying you deserved what you got and retract the statement.

Ignoring this apology, in post #135 and seeing no more hay to be made there, you return to the “gloating” tack.

In post #141 you attempt to close the discussion, evidently not feeling that you owe me anything at all.

And this brings us pretty much up to date.

I’ve said you gloated and I said you deserved what you got. I withdrew the latter comment and apologized for it.

I have, I believe, substantially demonstrated in this post that you have in fact gloated in this thread. However, something as subjective as “gloating” is hard to prove and ends in being subject to whether the person so accused is willing to cop to it or not. You are, clearly not willing to do so.

So, I tell you what, I’ll withdraw that one too. You weren’t gloating. If you say you weren’t gloating, I’ll take your word for it. It looked to me like you were, and evidently it looked to others like you were too but I was the one taken to task.

If I have failed to establish the charge to your satisfaction, depending as I must on your recollection and charity to do so, I willingly withdraw it.

Now, how about you?

Will you withdraw the libels you’ve published here against me?

 

[Eden]

Will you withdraw the libels you’ve published here against me?

Can you please refrain from continually turning this thread into something about you? I’m trying to say this nicely, but Steadfast, please take a deep breath and look at what you are doing, all of the post numbers and “he said”, then “I said”, then “she said”. This is really too much drama than is necessary in a thread that was supposed to be about Ted Haggard and his adulterous, homosexual affair and the betrayal of his family and followers.

 

[Steadfast]

Can you please refrain from continually turning this thread into something about you? I’m trying to say this nicely, but Steadfast, please take a deep breath and look at what you are doing, all of the post numbers and “he said”, then “I said”, then “she said”. This is really too much drama than is necessary in a thread that was supposed to be about Ted Haggard and his adulterous, homosexual affair and the betrayal of his family and followers.

You act like I’ve been doing this by myself here.

Have you completely missed the seven or so occasions where CestusDei has demanded satisfaction wrt my claim (and others’) that he was gloating?

Or does he get a pass?

This was necessary. CestusDei has asked to be shown where he gloated. I believe I’ve done so but I’ve also expressed my willingness to let it go if he won’t accept it.

If you think this is about me you’re either sadly mistaken or you haven’t been paying close enough attention. In either case you should refrain from comment. You know the old saying, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”?

I’ve conceded everything here and am only offering him the opportunity to recover some semblance of charity in this exchange by giving him the chance to retract his more immoderate claims even as I have been willing to withdraw my own and indeed have done so.

This is a crisis moment for this thread and, dare I say it, for this board. Please refrain from piling on, it’s both counterproductive and distracting.

 

[cestusdei]

I thought I was unworthy of any further interaction.

I reviewed my quotes and nothing there can be construed as gloating over Ted’s problems. Some of them say I was gloating, but there are no examples. But you are correct about the subjectivity. You can see whatever you want. Whether it’s gloating or libel or anything else. I no longer care about apologies, gloating, or even Ted. Frankly I don’t care about this thread anymore either.

I didn’t realize that the thread much less the board was in crisis. That is shocking news. I think it would be best if we all just let it go. I was ready to do that about 30 posts ago. I doubt I am alone in that. Besides the Muslims are complaining that I haven’t attacked them in days. We can’t let them feel neglected.

 

[Catherine_S]

Exactly. This is going to be used by some to show how bad we Christians are. I feel sorry for his congregation and those involved in the Nat’l Association of Evangelicals who looked to this man for leadership. We need to pray for everyone involved, not laugh at his bad judgement.

Bad Judgement ?

That kind of softens the betrayal of his wife, his children, members of his christain community and last but not least his
boyfriend (his preaching against same sex marriage is what triggered his sex partner going public :ehh: ). Hell hast no fury like a women scorned… ops… man scorned!!!

As always, we find the BIG lie and an equaly **BIG cover up. ****The father **of all lies is indeed at work in our day!

We will be hearing plenty more about this kind of deceit…the Lord is housecleaning and the idols are falling like flies.
.

 

[carol_marie]

IBesides the Muslims are complaining that I haven’t attacked them in days. We can’t let them feel neglected.

That’s actually very funny.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Cestus,

You have to admit, this man’s letter to his concregation is a beautiful piece of public confession. I am greatly encouraged that the typical “once saved always saved” brittleness of American Evangelicalism is finally coming down to it’s rightful end. He stood up and took the heat, naming his sins in public. He should be admired for the honest and Christian reaction to his “private” sin (no sins are really private, now are they padre…).

My main concern now is that he is going to “…submit to the oversight of Dr. James Dobson, Pastor Jack Hayford, and Pastor Tommy Barnett. Those men will perform a thorough analysis of my mental, spiritual, emotional, and physical life. They will guide me through a program with the goal of healing and restoration for my life, my marriage, and my family.”. Dr. Dobson has not rejected contraception, and still advocates that masterbation is “healthy”. I am not sure Pastor Haggard is going to get the counsel he really needs…

 

[Steadfast]

I thought I was unworthy of any further interaction.

I reviewed my quotes and nothing there can be construed as gloating over Ted’s problems. Some of them say I was gloating, but there are no examples. But you are correct about the subjectivity. You can see whatever you want. Whether it’s gloating or libel or anything else. I no longer care about apologies, gloating, or even Ted. Frankly I don’t care about this thread anymore either.

I didn’t realize that the thread much less the board was in crisis. That is shocking news. I think it would be best if we all just let it go. I was ready to do that about 30 posts ago. I doubt I am alone in that. Besides the Muslims are complaining that I haven’t attacked them in days. We can’t let them feel neglected.

I’m confused now, am I still a catholic-bashing, priest-slandering fundamentalist or not?

 

[johnnyjoe]

I dunna know… do you want to be?

You know, you ain’t the first ole Cestus has gotten riled up. He may be too blunt, but he isn’t “slanderous”…

How goes it Padre?

Miss you on Bnet… smoked another “contraception” thread last week… fish in a barrel, I tell you, fish in a barrel…

 

[bella5110]

I’m confused now, am I still a catholic-bashing, priest-slandering fundamentalist or not?

You are.